Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Oxford Corporation Bill [Lords,]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Sheffield Extension Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES.

Address for
Return showing the number of Offences relating to Motor Vehicles in England and Wales, together with the results of the proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction, and the number of persons cautioned or prosecuted for such offences, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1932 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 118, of Session 1931–32)."—[Mr. Hacking.]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASES.

Mr. TINKER: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make arrangements to close the gap between the cessation of payment of compensation to injured workmen and the commencement of unemployment benefits in cases where the workman is served with 10 days' notice and is then declared fit for work by the medical referee?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I cannot at present add anything to the reply on this subject given to the hon. Member on 23rd February. My right hon. Friend is, however, looking further into the matter in consultation with the Secretary of State for Home Affairs.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last week the hon. Member
for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) put a similar question to the Minister of Health, who has made up the difference in regard to National Health Insurance, and cannot the same thing be done for those who receive workmen's compensation?

Mr. HUDSON: I am not sure from the question exactly to which period my hon. Friend is referring—whether to the 10 days' notice or to what happens after a man has been declared fit for work by the referee. If he is referring to the latter point, he will realise that the law as regards Health Insurance is not quite the same as the law with regard to workmen's compensation. The latter is a little more complicated, but I hope to see if we can get an arrangement on the same lines.

Mr. TINKER: I am referring to the latter point, and I accept the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that he will go into the matter and see what can be done.

DONCASTER.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons were unemployed at Doncaster on 1st May, 1933, or the nearest date when figures were available and similar figures for the comparable date in 1932?

Mr. HUDSON: The number of unemployed persons on the registers of the Doncaster Employment Exchange was 10,338 at 24th April, 1933, and 14,356, at 25th April, 1932.

Miss WARD: Can the hon. Gentleman say of what class of person the decrease consists?

Mr. HUDSON: The decrease of over 4,000 has been, I am glad to say, in respect of men.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Has the hon. Gentleman any figures for the last fortnight with regard to the large number of miners who have been dismissed?

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member knows that the figures for the 24th April are the last that we have. No doubt when the count which was taken last Monday is received, I shall be able to give him further information, but there was a definite drop of 4,000 during the period ending the 24th April.

Mr. PIKE: Do these figures include the figures for the Don Valley Division?

Mr. HUDSON: These are men who were registered at the Doncaster Employment Exchange, and no doubt some of them may live in the Don Valley.

FARM WORK.

Major CARVER: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the extent to which unemployed urban men are being engaged to work on farm land; where such a policy is being carried out; and what are the conditions governing such relief work?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I am not aware of a policy on the lines to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. If he would be good enough to send me particulars of what he has in mind, I should be happy to go into the matter and communicate with him on the subject.

ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.

Mr. DENVILLE: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statistics showing the present number of unemployed actors, actresses, musicians and other theatrical employes; and if not, whether he will arrange to obtain such statistics at an early date?

Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The following table gives the information desired so far as it is available:

Unemployed men and women, aged 18 years and over, on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 24th April, 1933, who were applicants for employment in the undermentioned occupations:


—
Men.
Women.


Musicians
2,679
367


Actors, Actresses, Variety Artistes, etc.
1,037
1,029


Other Theatre, Music Hall and Cinema Employees.
2,597
1,097

WAGES.

Mr. LEWIS JONES: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state what is the latest information in his possession as to the comparative real wages in the following countries: Great Britain,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Czechslovakia, Italy, Spain, and Portugal?

Mr. HUDSON: The latest statistics of comparative real wages in oversea countries relate to July, 1930, and were published by the International Labour Office in the "International Labour Review" for October, 1930, and reproduced in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for November, 1930, page 404. The International Labour Office have not compiled and published statistics of comparative real wages in respect of any date later than July, 1930.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: Why is the International Labour Office not publishing the figures any longer?

Mr. HUDSON: I understand that certain foreign countries took exception to the conclusions that were drawn as a result of this inquiry and objected that the figures were not properly comparable.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Do the figures referred to include the wage value of social services?

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member will find full particulars in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, page 404.

Mr. L. JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman have these figures published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. HUDSON: I do not think that I can undertake to do that.

Mr. LAWSON: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the information about wages in his possession is very meagre as very few wages agreements are sent to the Ministry?

Mr. HUDSON: As far as this country is concerned, I do not think that that is so. As regards real wages, we can make a fairly good estimate, but we have not that information for foreign countries.

Mr. TH0RNE: Would it be advisable to go to the expense of publishing a White Paper showing the wages for these countries?

Mr. HUDSON: That is the point of my reply—that we have not the informa-
tion available, and that the International Labour Office have ceased to collect statistics.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT (SENTENCE).

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on or about 5th May, 1932, the Governor of Wandsworth Prison received a confession from a man named Hoye, admitting that he had committed the crime for which Henry Kendall, of 43, Goldsmith Row, Shoreditch, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in April, 1932; whether he has verified this confession; and what action he is taking in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Kendall was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on the 10th March, 1932, on two separate charges. In respect of the first charge, that of receiving a motor car and storebreaking, he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. In respect of the second charge, that of robbery with violence, he was sentenced to three years' penal servitude to run concurrently with the sentence of five years' penal servitude, and he was also ordered to receive 12 strokes with the cat. Statements to the effect mentioned in the question have been received in respect of the second charge and were carefully investigated, but my predecessor found no grounds for any action on his part. The case has again been reviewed, but I can find no reason for differing from the view taken by my predecessor.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man has a paralysed arm and was sentenced for committing robbery with violence, and will he give me the opportunity of privately putting some facts before him?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I shall always be prepared to consider any facts which the hon. Member places before me.

MANCHESTER PRISON.

Mr. BAILEY: 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can make a statement as to the present position of discipline in Manchester prison?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is nothing in the present position of discipline in Manchester prison which calls for any statement by me, but I am glad to have the opportunity of contradicting statements published in certain newspapers in regard to a recent incident which are grossly exaggerated or untrue in almost every particular. They appear to have been made on information furnished by an ex-prisoner who seems to have given a garbled account of an incident when one prisoner, who was under mental observation, smashed some panes of glass and a few prisoners shouted as he was being removed by prison officers. On being ordered to do so these prisoners went quietly and obediently to their cells. Disciplinary action has been taken by the Visiting Committee against five prisoners in respect of the incident, which was in no way connected with any complaints against food. There has been no other disturbance, no refusal to work, no application for police help, and no person has been injured.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the newspapers that circulated the report?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that it was circulated in the "Daily Dispatch" and, I believe, also in the "Evening Chronicle."

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Not the "Daily Herald" this time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

YORKSHIRE.

Mr. HEPWORTH: 9.
asked the Minister of Health whether any of the housing authorities in Yorkshire have yet submitted their slum clearance scheme; and, if so, whether he can give details?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): No slum clearance scheme has reached me yet from any housing authority in Yorkshire in response to the request which I made on 6th April. The request was for the submission of schemes not later than the end of September; so that no inference should be based upon the fact that schemes have not yet reached me.

Mr. HEPWORTH: 10.
asked the Minister of Health whether any local autho-
rities in Yorkshire have, Since the suspension of housing subsidies, constructed houses without subsidy; and, if so, whether he can give details?

Sir H. YOUNG: No such houses have been actually built, but the Shelf Urban District Council has been authorised to build 16 three-bedroomed non-parlour type houses.

BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. HANNON: 11.
asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking with respect to the application of the City of Birmingham for permission to borrow for the purpose of building small houses to let without subsidy?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have asked the City of Birmingham to bring its proposals for building small houses in general into relation to its programme for clEarlng or reconditioning slums, which I have not yet received. The most pressing need is for slum clearance or reconditioning, and it is obviously necessary to prepare the programme of fresh building and reconditioning under the slum scheme before it is possible to judge the needs or the means for other fresh building.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, if a scheme is submitted to him under the enlightened policy of the Corporation of Birmingham, they will have the support of his Ministry in carrying through slum clearance?

Sir H. YOUNG: I think there is a hypothetical element in that question.

BUILDING SOCIETIES' LOANS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 15.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state what is the total amount of loans which building societies have indicated that they are prepared to make under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, 1933; and how this amount is distributed between the principal building societies?

Sir H. YOUNG: This is not a matter on which I have precise information. It is not necessary that a society prepared to make loans should specify any total amount.

DELAYED SCHEMES (HOUSING ACT, 1924).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 20.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities whose applications to erect houses under the terms of the 1924 Housing Act
were out of date, have, on consideration, been permitted to complete their schemes; and how many houses are involved?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member will see from the circular which was issued to local authorities on the 22nd instant, a copy of which I am sending to him, that local authorities who consider that their proposals are entitled to consideration under the proviso to Section 1 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, which only became law last week, have been invited to submit their applications, supported by full particulars of the grounds on which they are based, before the 30th June next, and that I propose immediately after that date, in consultation with the Treasury, to proceed to the approval of such applications as are found to fall within the limits of the Act.

STATISTICS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 21.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses were in course of erection by private enterprise and by local authorities on 1st May, 1932, and 1st May, 1933?

Sir H. YOUNG: The numbers of subsidised houses in course of erection in England and Wales on 30th April, 1932, by private enterprise and by local authorities, respectively, were 1,114 and 33,493. The corresponding figures for 30th April, 1933, were 1,388 and 29,122. Information is not available as to the number of houses under construction without State subsidy.

MlTCHAM.

Mr. MAITLAND (for Mr. MELLER): 13.
asked the Minister of Health if he will reconsider the application of the Mitcham Urban District Council and assist the council, by way of grant or otherwise, to re-house the occupants of houses destroyed by the recent explosion in Mitcham?

Sir H. YOUNG: Proposals for rehousing have been submitted to me by the council and are being dealt with as a matter of the greatest urgency, but I am afraid that I have no power to make such a grant as the council have suggested.

Mr. MAITLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the opinion of the Mitcham Urban District Council these
houses that were destroyed by the explosion would have been scheduled as a slum area? In view of his well-known desire to help in providing new homes for people living in slum areas, will he reconsider the application from that point of view?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have gone into the matter, and I am advised that legally it is not possible for me to make such a grant.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CONTRACTS).

Mr. HANNON: 12.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the increasing practice of local government bodies stipulating in their schedules or contracts a particular make or brand of certain articles and whether, in view of the direction of the Ministry of Health in Appendix VI of its Annual Report for the year 1931–32, which states that it is undesirable that particular makes of goods or fittings or proprietary designs should be specified, and specifications should be drafted to permit of supplies being obtained through competitive agencies, any further action can be taken to secure compliance with the directions laid down by the Ministry?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is the practice in cases where my sanction is required to a loan to require open tenders and, where the matter comes before me, to object so far as practicable to the specification of proprietary articles, unless there are special reasons to the contrary. Contracts for ordinary supplies which are paid for out of revenue are not subject to my approval. I am not aware that the practice of asking for particular articles is increasing, but I propose to call atten to the matter again in my forthcoming Annual Report.

Mr. HANNON: If particular cases are brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend, will he look into them?

Sir H. YOUNG: I will certainly look into any case which the hon. Member brings to my attention.

WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. LEVY: 19.
asked the Minister of Health if he will request local authorities
who have been invited to arrange local conferences with housing interests, in order to stimulate the erection of houses to let at low rents, to consider also the provision of adequate water supplies?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have already issued a circular to county councils and rural district councils on rural water supplies. Supplies in urban areas are generally satisfactory, and the best course is to deal specially with any individual case which requires attention.

Mr. LEVY: Will my right hon. Friend follow up those conferences with regional conferences on water supplies, dealing with the areas that could most conveniently be linked up?

Sir H. YOUNG: That is a matter which would be best considered in relation to particular areas. If my hon. Friend has any particular area in mind, I will very gladly go into its case.

WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 22.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the resolution passed by the organising committee of the World Economic Conference not to intensify the measures which at present misdirect and paralyse international trade, provision will be made for the effects of any devaluation of currency?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): If any unforeseen situation should arise while the Tariff Truce Resolution is in force, whether in regard to the level of currencies or otherwise, the Organising Committee would no doubt meet again to consider how to deal with such a new situation in conformity with the spirit of the resolution.

Mr. PIKE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to accept the guidance of expert industrialists upon the terms of international trading agreements which representatives of His Majesty's Government propose to submit for acceptance at the World Economic Conference?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): His Majesty's Government are taking steps to arrange
for the appointment of industrial advisers to the United Kingdom Delegation, in order that the Delegation may have the advantage of consulting them as occasion requires. An announcement will be made as soon as the list can be given.

Mr. LAWSON: Have the Government any intention of using the expert advice of Lord Snowden?

Mr. BALDWIN: indicated assent.

GERMAN LOAN (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. POTTER: 23.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that a portion of the proceeds of the German 5½ per cent. loan of 1930, floated in London, was paid into the Treasury, His Majesty's Government will accept re sponsibility for maintaining in full the terms of the contract by which British investors were induced to subscribe their savings to a loan to Germany as part of the British policy of European pacification under the Young scheme?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) on Thursday last.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

BREWERS' LICENCES.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: 24.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated financial effect in a full year, on the basis of last year's figures of production of beer, of the reduction in the rate of duty on brewers' licences?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As stated in the Budget White Paper the estimated revenue effect of the alteration proposed in the duty on licences to brewers for sale is negligible.

Mr. FOOT: The word "negligible" may mean anything. Cannot we have any more definite information in regard to a duty which has not been altered Since the beginning of the War?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The alteration in the duty is necessitated by the fact that brewers no longer have the option to
decide whether duty should be paid on the standard barrel or the bulk barrel. They now have to pay on bulk barrels. Before they could pay on standard barrels. The duty has been reduced accordingly, but the effect on the revenue will not be more than a few thousand pounds one way or the other.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. DENVILLE: 25.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the desirability of minimising unemployment due to the levy of the Entertainments Duty, he will arrange to obtain statistics showing the proportion of this duty which is yielded by the duty on dramatic entertainments, musical entertainments, music hall entertainments and cinematograph entertainments and sporting events, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that separate particulars of the receipts of entertainments duty from different classes of entertainments are not obtainable, because in the case of duty paid by the purchase of stamps or stamped tickets there is no information as to the class of entertainment for which the stamps or tickets may be used.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the deadly effect of this tax on small cinemas, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he ought to attempt to ascertain this information before the Amendments on the Order Paper are dealt with?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Before we could do that the method of selling stamps or tickets would have to be changed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Could the right hon. Gentleman not call for a return from cinema proprietors on which he could base his final judgment when the Schedule referred to is fiNaily dealt with?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, the duty is paid by purchase of stamps, and cinema proprietors could not give that information.

SOCIAL SERVICES (EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 26.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount paid by the Exchequer for the year ended 31st March last to the unemployment insurance (including transitional payments), the national health insurance,
the contributory pensions (old age, widows 'and orphans'), and the old age non-contributory pensions?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-BeIisha): The amounts paid by the Exchequer for the year ended 31st March, 1933, to the services mentioned by my hon. Friend are as follow:

£


Unemployment Fund (including transitional payments)
79,400,000


National Health Insurance Fund
6,331,000


Contributory Pensions Scheme
11,000,000


Old age pensions (including contributory old age pensions where the recipients are over 70 years of age)
39,710,000

TRADE AND COMMERCE (CLOTH EXPORTS).

Mr. HAMILTON KERR: 28.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the difficulties caused to the trade by the present enforcement of the new regulations governing the export of cloth for finishing, he will take steps to ensure smoother working in this respect in future?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not aware of the particular difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers, but if he will communicate with me I will have enquiry made.

LINCOLNSHIRE (CATCHMENT AREA).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the reasons for the delay in the negotiations concerning the establishment of a catchment area on the East LinColnshire coast; and if he will indicate what action he proposes to take?

Major ELLIOT: The delay has arisen mainly in connection with the question of the inclusion of the County Borough of Grimsby within the proposed catchment area, on which matter the views of the county borough have only recently become available to the Lindsey County Council. The question is, to-day, being further discussed at a meeting between officers of the Ministry and of the County Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

EGO PRICES (BROADCASTING).

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider arranging for the re-introduction of the broadcasting of National Mark egg prices; and what is the reason why such broadcasting was abandoned?

Major ELLIOT: The practice of broadcasting National Mark egg price quotations was abandoned because, in the opinion of the Board of National Mark Egg Control, the form in which it was possible to broadcast these price quotations was misleading. I understand that the Board have recently been approached with a view to the resumption of the practice of broadcasting the quotations in question, and if they consent to this course, I will do my best to make the necessary arrangements.

CREDIT FACILITIES.

Major CARVER: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the need of immediate Capttal on many farms in the country; and if he is further considering the possibility of affording farmers a better system of short-tenn credits?

Major ELLIOT: I am aware of the circumstances referred to in the first part of the question. In regard to the last part of the question, however, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on the 18th May to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Mac-donald).

FAT CATTLE (PRICES).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the price of fat cattle at the present time and at this time last year?

Major ELLIOT: The average price per live cwt. of first quality fat cattle for the week ended 17th May, at markets for which the Ministry obtains reports, was 40s. 10d., as compared with 49s. 10d. for the corresponding week in 1932.

Lieut-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Do those figures not show that the restrictions on imports are not severe enough and will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take immediate steps to increase them?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are not these prices due to the poverty of the people rather than to a shortage in the supply?

Major ELLIOT: Obviously, more factors have to be taken into account than the factor of restrictions. There is the possibility of a change-over to other forms of meat.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the Minister not aware that cattle now coming on the market are store-fed cattle, that they cost more to produce and that they give more employment than is given by grass-fed cattle, and will he take steps to make store feeding profitable?

Major ELLIOT: We can do nothing until the Bill is on the Statute Book and then with the co-operation of the hon. and gallant Member we shall be able to see that it is made effective.

RUSSIAN BUTTER (IMPORTS).

Sir G. FOX: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of Soviet butter which has been imported into this country Since the establishment of the embargo on Russian imports; and to what extent licences have already been issued for the importation of such butter in the immediate future?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): 19,286 cwts. of Russian butter have been imported under licences issued under Section 2 of the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act, 1933, and licences will shortly be issued for a further quantity of 10,000 cwts. All this butter had been substantially paid for before the issue of the Royal Proclamation on 19th April.

Sir G. FOX: Is the Minister not aware of the urgent necessity for restricting the importation of butter from all sources into this country, and thus giving encouragement in the dairy industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am quite well aware of it, and, if it can be done only to the detriment of the persons against whom it is directed, that is all very well, but I do not like to penalise our own people.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Would it not be possible to know who are the purchasers of this butter?

CATTLE (IMPORT REGULATIONS, CANADA).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will enter into negotiations with the Canadian Government to ensure that cattle imported from this country to Canada are subject to the same conditions, with regard to quarantine, as Canadian cattle imported into this country; and whether, failing agreement, he will impose similar conditions in this country to those imposed by the Canadian Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am advised that the incidence of animal diseases in this country —such, for instance, as foot and mouth— is different from their incidence in Canada, and the regulations of each country in respect of the import of cattle from the other must be expected to reflect that difference. I do not see my way to adopt the suggestion in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Canadian regulations are a great handicap to our farmers; and will he consult the Minister of Agriculture and see whether anything can be done to help?

Mr. THOMAS: I shall be delighted to consult the Minister of Agriculture.

OATS (ARGENTINE AGREEMENT).

Mr. ROBERT SMITH: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that tariff adjustments with the Argentine are to be the subject of further discussions, he will give consideration to the serious position of the producers of oats in Great Britain and take steps to protect their interests when these discussions are taking place?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The interests of producers of oats in the United Kingdom will certainly be borne in mind during the tariff negotiations with Argentina.

SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY (SUBSIDY).

Major CARVER: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any agreement has been reached between the beet-sugar interest and the refining interests on the future of the sugar industry in this
country; whether this affects the continuance of the sugar-beet subsidy now granted by the Government; and, if so, to what extent and on what lines?

Major ELLIOT: As (has already been announced, the Government have under consideration certain proposals, agreed between the refining and beet-sugar interests and submitted by them, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement either as to the nature of these proposals or as to their likely effect on the future needs of the sugar-beet industry.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Before the Government come to a conclusion on this matter, will they carry out the undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech last year, that there shall be an inquiry into the operation of the present beet-sugar subsidy?

Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend will be aware that he asked a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 16th March on that point, and I have nothing to add to the answer then given.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when he expects to be in a position to announce the nature of these proposals?

Major ELLIOT: We hope to be in a position to do so certainly before there is any anxiety about the future arrangements which have to be come to.

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS.

Mr. LECKIE: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, for the convenience of visitors from the country, he will arrange for the glasshouses at the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, to be opened from 10 o'clock onwards on all week days instead of on Tuesdays and Fridays only, as at present?

Major ELLIOT: These glasshouses are open to the public every day from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and on Tuesdays and Fridays, which are students' days, also from 10 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. I regret I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion, having regard to the time occupied in cultural operations, rearrangement of plants, and other necessary work in the glasshouses.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. DENVILLE: 37.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inquire into the case of Mr. J. L. Johnson, of 34, Hawthorn Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne, in view of the fact that this man is helpless through gunshot wounds and is destitute; and will he state if he will do anything in this case?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): As my hon. Friend is aware, this case has recently been investigated at his instance, and the full facts have been communicated to him. The pensioner in question is in receipt of a life pension at the rate appropriate to the extent of disablement resulting from his War service. There are no grounds on which I should have authority to increase the award.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 36.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many claims for disability pensions were received by his Department during 1932; how many were recognised and awards made; and how many were refused?

Major TRYON: The information asked for in this question is contained in the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Deritend (Mr. Smedley Crooke) on 21st February last, of which I am sending him a copy.

NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).

Mr. LOGAN: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that an efficient separator is now being produced, it is proposed to take any steps to prevent the discharge of oil at sea?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The discharge of oil within the territorial limits of this country is prohibited under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922. If the hon. Member has in mind the compulsory fitting of separators on vessels, this is a matter for international action, the possibility of which is being considered.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is it not possible for the Minister to get the authority of this House to impose very much heavier penalties upon those who discharge oil at sea?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am advised that that proposal would not have the desired effect.

Mr. GRENFELL: Does the Minister anticipate that nothing will be done to stop this pollution of the sea?

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

FLYING REGULATIONS (NOISE).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if, in view of the annoyance caused by the noise of aeroplanes to a large number of people, he will consider the desirability of restricting commercial flying to definite lines of traffic and pleasure flying to thinly-populated districts?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): My Noble Friend regrets that he cannot adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. It would unduly restrict the reasonable development of commercial flying, and would to a large extent, deprive the general public of reasonable opportunities for pleasure flying.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to do anything to relieve people from the infliction that they suffer from aeroplanes?

Sir P. SASSOON: The hon. Member suggests that flying should be concentrated in thinly-populated areas; but people usually go there to be quiet, and the inhabitants would be the first to complain if the hon. Member's suggestion were carried out.

Lord APSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to prohibit the use of open exhausts on aircraft engines?

Sir P. SASSOON: My Noble Friend knows that we will do whatever we possibly can to restrict noise.

AERODROMES.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the establishment of aerodromes greatly reduces the value of neighbouring property; and if he will introduce legislation to compensate those whose property has been so reduced in value?

Sir P. SASSOON: My information goes to show that the effect of establishing aerodromes is often quite contrary to that stated in the question, and I regret I can hold out no prospect of special legislation on the subject being introduced.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of any aerodromes that he thinks have improved the character of the locality in which they were established, from a residential point of view?

Sir P. SASSOON: I think that the land in the vicinity of aerodromes has gone up in value because of the extremely rapid means of transport available and the assurance of large open spaces that will not be built upon.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of any such aerodromes?

Sir P. SASSOON: I could begin by giving the name of the aerodrome in London—Croydon.

GROUND MARKINGS.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 46.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the scarcity of identification signs throughout the country for the assistance of air navigation; and if he will arrange for towns and railway stations to have their names conspicuously displayed in white letters legible at 1,000 feet?

Sir P. SASSOON: I think the scarcity of ground markings is rather less serious than my hon. and gallant Friend's question suggests, and that there is no special further action which the Air Ministry could suitably take at the present time. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Air Ministry is sympathetic to the scheme outlined in my reply of 9th December, 1931, to my Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley).

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Would it not be possible for the Air Ministry to give some special encouragement to railway companies to have the names of the railway stations painted on the roofs as well as on the walls of their buildings?

Sir P. SASSOON: Railway stations are very often situated in thickly-populated
areas, and, if the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion were adopted there might he some danger from low flying.

Mr. PERKINS: Is the Minister aware that a large number of gas companies have already painted the names of their towns on the tops of the gasholders, and will he not consider writing a personal letter to gas companies in order to get this practice adopted all over the country?

Sir P. SASSOON: I will consider that.

FOREIGN COUNTRIES (SPECIAL NAVIGATION AGREEMENTS).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement as to the results to date of the working of the convention regarding air navigation between Great Britain and Austria, which came into force on 14th January, 1933; and with how many other foreign countries similar conventions are in force or in process of negotiation?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regard the first part of the question, it is known that United Kingdom pilots have taken advantage of the convention referred to, which enables them to make private flights to or over Austrian territory without obtaining prior permission. I have, however, no information as to the actual number of flights made. As regards the second part, two other such special agreements are in operation, and three are in process of negotiation. Occasion for such special agreements only arises, of course, in the case of States which are not parties to the Convention for the Regulation of Aerial Navigation, 1919; some 30 State members have subscribed to that convention.

PILOTS.

captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if his attention has been drawn to the recent legal decision which laid down the pilot's powers when in charge of an aeroplane; and if he will take steps to have the principle thus legally determined included in Government legislation dealing with air navigation?

Sir P. SASSOON: I have seen a report of the case to which my hon. and gallant
Friend presumably refers. It does not, however, seem to me to give rise to any point on which new legislation would be appropriate.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (DISCHARGES).

Mr. LEWIS: 47.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many men during each of the past two years have been discharged from the Royal Air Force before their period of service was long enough to entitle them to a pension; and how many new recruits have been taken on during the same periods?

Sir P. SASSOON: The number of airmen discharged or transferred to the reserve on the completion of their engagements, and not eligible for pension, was 1,823 during the financial year 1931, and 1,789 during 1932. The numbers recruited during the same years, including boys entered for apprenticeship training, were 2,251 and 1,069 respectively.

Mr. LEWIS: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate how undesirable it is that in so many cases employment in the Royal Air Force should turn out to be a blind-alley occupation?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is obviously essential that there should be a proper flow of recruits coming into the Air Force, and that those who do come in should stay in for the period for which they have engaged.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FILM CENSORSHIP.

Lord SCONE: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Scottish magistrates have no power to make any regulations, other than safety rules, for the exhibition of kinematograph films, and cannot prevent children and young per sons from attending films which have been passed by the censor as suitable for adults only: and whether he is prepared to introduce the necessary legislation to enable suitable regulations to be brought into operation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As my right hon. Friend stated in answer to a question addressed to him on 21st
March last, by the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Duchess of Atholl), he is advised that the legal position in Scotland is as stated in the first part of the question, though he is not aware that the matter has been the subject of judicial decision. As regards the latter part of the question, the subject is at present receiving careful consideration, but my right hon. Friend is not in a position to give any undertaking as to legislation.

HOUSING, ABERDEEN.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reason why the corporation of Aberdeen has not built any houses under the 1930 Housing Act; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?

Mr. SKELTON: My attention was drawn some time ago to the fact that, though the corporation of Aberdeen have completed over 3,000 houses with State assistance Since 1919, none of these has been provided under the Act of 1930. The corporation have, however, erected 280 houses for the replacement of unfit houses with the assistance of the slum clearance grant available under the Act of 1923. The Department of Health have been in correspondence with the corporation on this subject, and I am informed that the corporation are preparing a scheme for the erection of some 500 houses for slum replacement on land already in their possession.

Mr. BURNETT: Is it not the case that the corporation of Aberdeen has been very fully occupied with its 1924–25 programme, and that the suggestion that it has —been behindhand is entirely without foundation?

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that a number of complaints have been made, not only to the corporation, but also to the Scottish Office, as to the delay in erecting houses under this Act?

Mr. SKELT0N: My attention was drawn to the matter in March, and a correspondence with the corporation was begun then by the Department of Health. In April certain ratepayers went through the ordinary procedure of Section 37 of the Act of 1930. I have not taken any action with regard to that position, as the matter is already in hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR COACHES (SIDE LAMPS).

Sir G. FOX: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many motor coaches carry side lamps so high that they are useless; and whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a regulation that side lamps should be carried at a uniform height at which theirutility for road purposes is greatest?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I agree that side lamps on motor vehicles should not be carried at too great a height, but my attention had not been drawn to any special difficulty with regard to motor coaches in this respect. Normally these vehicles, owing to their internal lighting, are sufficiently visible at night. I doubt whether a regulation on the subject is necessary, but I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

CANAL BRIDGES.

Mr. JOEL: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport to what extent he is now prepared to consider schemes for the improvement of canal bridges; whether he has issued any recent circular to local authorities with regard to this matter; and, if not, whether he proposes to do so in order to stimulate such work at an early date?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular letter which is now being issued to highway authorities regarding the grants which will be available for approved works of improvement of roads and bridges, etc., during the financial year 1933–34. The third paragraph of the letter deals with the reconstruction of weak bridges which are not vested in highway authorities, and explains the conditions under which the Minister is prepared to consider applications for grants towards the reconstruction of road bridges over railways, canals, etc.

IRISH FREE STATE (COAL IMPORTS).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 52.
asked the Secretary for Mines the figures of the average monthly imports of coal from the Bristol Channel ports and the United Kingdom, respectively, into the Irish
Free State for the six months January to July, 1932, and the six months July to December, 1932, with the average c.i.f. prices in both cases?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I have been asked to reply. I regret that the Trade Accounts of the Irish Free State do not disclose such information, but the average monthly quantity of coal exported to the Irish Free State from Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the first six months of 1932 was 191,176 tons, and during the second six months, 130,458 tons. Of these quantities, 38,592 tons and 28,783 tons respectively, were exported from the Bristol Channel ports. Average c.i.f. figures are not available, but the average declared value, f.o.b., of all coal exported to the Irish Free State, was 18s. 9d. per ton and 17s. 11d. per ton during the two periods respectively. Similar values of exports from the Bristol Channel ports are not readily available.

Mr. GRENFELL: 53.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information as to the tonnage of foreign coal imported into Ireland in the nine months July, 1932, to March, 1933, and the corresponding figures for the corresponding period a year earlier; and the c.i.f. price of coals from Germany, Poland and Belgium?

Dr. BURGIN: I have been asked to reply. Official statistics are not available, but, so far as I can ascertain, imports of foreign coal into the Irish Free State in the nine months July, 1932, to March, 1933, amounted to approximately 600,000 statute tons, and no foreign coal was imported in the corresponding period a year earlier. With regard to prices, typical examples of quotations c.i.f. Dublin within the last few days are as follow:

Per statute ton.



s.
d.


Polish Upper Silesian Large Steam Coal
19
0


German Westphalian Gas Flame Large
19
9


Westphalian Unscreened Gas
18
3

No information is available in regard to Belgian coals.

Mr. GRENFELL: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures reveal a loss of employment to 4,000 or 5,000 men engaged in the mining industry of this country, and a transference of that employment to Germany and Poland?

Dr. BURGIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow the Secretary for Mines to deal with that point himself.

Mr. GRENFELL: May I be allowed to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether this silly family squabble cannot be brought to an end?

Mr. RONALD ROSS: May I ask whether the hon. Member's policy in connection with coal and Ireland is always one of surrender?

BRITISH ARMY (TROOPS, CHINA).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, with regard to the proposal to build new barracks at Hong Kong, whether it is intended to alter the distribution of British troops in China?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Unless there should be any change in the situation in Shanghai, it is not proposed to replace the battalion which is to be withdrawn this winter from Shanghai to Hong Kong in accordance with the normal trooping programme. This does not involve a change of policy as regards our garrisons in China, Since the two battalions at Shanghai are an integral part of the garrison of Hong Kong, having been detached to deal with the situation in Shanghai. The total garrison in China will, therefore, remain the same, and it will always be possible to reinforce Shanghai from Hong Kong quickly, as was done in February, 1932.

INDIA (MAHARAJAH OF ALWAR).

Mr. LEVY: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that the Maharajah of Alwar has agreed to leave his State for two years pending the restoration of its finances by British officials, any guarantee will be obtained from the Maharajah before he is permitted to resume the administration of his State at the expiration of that period?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): All questions of this kind will naturally have to be considered by the Paramount Power in deciding, when the time comes, under what conditions it would be advisable for His Highness to return to his State.

Mr. LEVY: Do the Government contemplate restoring this ruler to power, after the affairs of his State have been put into order, without any guarantee?

Sir S. HOARE: I (have nothing to add to my answer except this, that we will consider the situation when it arises in two years' time.

Mr. BAILEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to who is likely to be the paramount Power at that time?

Sir S. HOARE: Certainly; the same Power which holds the paramountcy today.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. TOM SMITH: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Advisory Committee of the League of Nations which was set up in connection with the Sino-Japanese dispute has yet made any report on the question of an arms embargo; and, if not, whether, in view of Japan's continued aggression in Chinese territory, he will urge the committee to expedite its work?

Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I think it may be assumed that the committee is pursuing its labours as expeditiously as it can.

Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have a decision on this matter.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I cannot.

RUSSIA (CHINESE EASTERN RAILWAY).

Mr. MACLEAN: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding negotiations between the Governments of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and Manchukuo regarding the sale of Russia's interest in the Chinese Eastern
Railway; and whether, seeing that such sale would constitute an infringement of the sovereignty of China, he will take steps to secure the recognition of this sovereignty which is guaranteed under the Nine-Power Treaty of Washington?

Mr. BALDWIN: I understand that the Soviet Government have offered to sell their rights in the Chinese Eastern Railway to the Manchukuo Government, but it is not apparent to me that this involves any obligation on the part of the signatories of the Nine-Power Treaty.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the Manchukuo Government have claimed that part of the railway which origiNaily belonged, and presently does belong, to China; and will the right hon. Gentleman not take into consideration the fact that this Government has no power to contract with the Soviet Republic of Russia to sell a railway in which it has no right?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should be very sorry to assume that the Soviet Government will do anything to infringe the sovereignty of another country.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer my question, which was, not whether the Soviet Republic have any rights to sell, but whether the Manchukuo Government have any rights to buy?

Mr. BALDWIN: That is an extremely difficult legal question, on which I am not prepared to pronounce an opinion.

Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received from His Majesty's Minister to the Chinese Republic any dispatch dealing with this subject, and, if so, can it be laid on the Table of the House, or will he state the Source of the information that he has just conveyed to the House?

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put a question down. I have answered the question on the Paper.

Mr. LANSBURY: I will raise it in the discussion to-morrow.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS (BIRCHING).

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON (for Viscountess ASTOR): 6.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to recent cases where punishments of
birching have been inflicted on boys before the expiration of the statutory period during which the decisions might be appealed against; if he is aware that two boys, aged 12 years each, were ordered at the Southport children's court, on 13th April, to receive six strokes of the birch each, and that the same two boys were on 19th April again ordered six strokes of the birch each for an offence committed before the former one; and whether, in view of these and similar cases, he will introduce a Bill to abolish birching as a punishment for young persons on the lines of the original draft of the Children Bill in 1932?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of any requirement in law to delay the carrying out of an order of a court of summary jurisdiction for the whipping of a boy, as suggested in the first part of the question. On the contrary, the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, provides that the whipping shall be administered as soon as practicable. My attention has been called to the Southport case and I am informed by the Justices that they only resort to whipping on the rarest occasions and with the utmost reluctance. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. My hon. Friend will remember that only last year a proposal in the Children and Young Persons Bill to deprive Courts of Summary Jurisdiction of the power to order boys to be whipped was not accepted by Parliament.

EXCHEQUER GRANTS (WALES).

Mr. ALED ROBERTS (for Mr. RICHARD EVANS): 16.
asked the Minister of Health whether the deductions he proposes to make in the Exchequer grants payable to certain authorities have been fixed; and, if so, how the grant revenue of each of the boroughs and counties for South Wales will be affected?

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 17.
asked the Minister of Health whether the grants to the county councils of North Wales are to be affected by the decision to allocate £500,000 to the distressed areas and, if so, to what extent?

Sir H. YOUNG: The reference is presumably to the statement which I made on 12th April as to a temporary measure of assistance to the distressed areas.
The matter is at present under discussion with representatives of the London County Council and the County Councils Association and Association of Municipal Corporations, and I am, accordingly, unable to make any statement as to the allocation of any particular sum for the purpose or as to the effect on the finances of particular authorities.

MONEYLENDERS ACT.

Mr. DORAN: 27.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of persons and firms registered under the Moneylenders Act on the 1st March, 1933, or on such other date on which the returns can be made up, giving the nationality of the persons so registered?

Mr. H0RE-BELISHA: The system of registering moneylenders was abolished by the Moneylenders Act, 1927. Instead, moneylenders are, subject to certain exceptions, required to obtain Excise licences annually, and these licences are only granted to persons authorised by the Petty Sessional Justices or other competent authority to hold them. The number of licences issued in the year ended 31st March, 1932 (the latest date up to which the figures are at present available) was 3,519. No information as to the nationality of holders of licences is available.

Mr. LOGAN: Are any Hitlerites registered in this country?

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. DAGGAR: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement regarding the position of the Disarmament Conference Since the declaration by Mr. Norman Davis in the general committee?

Mr. BALDWIN: The discussion of the United Kingdom Draft Convention is still continuing at Geneva. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to make a statement on Foreign Affairs tomorrow, and perhaps the hon. Member will be so good as to await until then a fuller answer to his question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE,

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what will be the
business for next week, and at the same time, how far he proposes to go with the Finance Bill to-night?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have looked carefully through the Amendments, and I hope it may be possible to get as far as Clause 38 to-night, but in that event I should propose that Clauses 29 and 30 should not be taken, as I understand it would be more convenient to the Opposition if they were not taken to-night. If we get as far, we will move to postpone their consideration. I hope we can get the Metropolitan Police [Money] Resolution. The first two Orders on the Paper, I think, are non-controversial and will not take any time. After that, we will proceed to consider the Finance Bill. With regard to next week,
On Monday, we shall take the Agricultural Marketing Bill, Report and Third Reading, to be continued on Tuesday until half-past seven, when we propose to resume the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday and Thursday: Finance Bill. We hope to conclude the Committee stage on Thursday night.
Friday: Motion for the Whitsuntide Recess, and the House will be asked to reassemble on Tuesday, 13th June.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that the Police [Money] Resolution must be taken at the end of the Sitting after Eleven o'clock. We must not be taken as consenting to the proposal. The Government give us the choice of taking it late at night in any case and we prefer to take it to-night, but it means that we either have to sit up very late and discuss it at an hour which we think is quite unseemly or allow it to go simply with a Division. We agree under duress.

Mr. BALDWIN: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have no desire in any way to curtail such Debate as he desires. I hope progress may be such as to enable it to come on at a reasonable time. There is no intention of sitting up late to-night.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that we shall not make the Debate to-night long. It will
not be us. There are many of his own supporters who will have a very great deal to say on the subjects that are coming up, and the right hon. Gentleman, with the best intentions, may find us all landed about eleven or half-past to take this Police Resolution.

Mr. BALDWIN: I entirely agree with that, and, of course, the discussion which always arises on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is a matter in the hands of the House. We will do the best we can to make that arrangement, but on the Finance Bill the interests are such that no one can gather that any particular portion of the Bill will come to an end at a particular time.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point that this year we have been squeezed for time.

Mr. BALDWIN: indicated dissent.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think so, anyhow. All this business must be got through in order to release the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We might have had this Vote for the Police taken earlier and had another day, or half-a-day, for the Finance Bill, but I understand—and I appreciate the fact—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must go to the World Economic Conference. Still I think it is a pity that this matter is put down in this rather rushed and hurry-up sort of way.

Ordered,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Cape to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of of the Slaughter of Animals Bill); Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Metropolitan Police Bill); and Sir Ian Macpherson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

False Oaths (Scotland) Bill,

Solicitors (Scotland) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Hereford and West Kent Main Sewerage District) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Tees Valley Water Board and West Monmouthshire Omnibus Board) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter the boundaries of the borough of Barking; to confer further powers on the Barking Corporation in relation to their electricity and markets undertakings, lands, street trading, and other matters; to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and local government of the borough: and for other purposes." [Barking Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Bootle with regard to the running of public service vehicles in the borough and neighbourhood and to make provision with regard to the abandonment and discontinuance of the tramways in the borough; and for other purposes."[Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [Lords.]

That they have appointed a Committer consisting of six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Local Government Bill [Lords,] and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

BARKING CORPORATION BILL [Lords.]

BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Denville, Captain Peter Macdonald, and
Sir Kenyon Vaughan Morgan: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Eady, Sir Joseph Lamb, and Mr. Morgan.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Slaughter of Animals Bill): Lieut. -Colonel Sandeman Allen, Mr. Banfield, Mr. Duckworth, Mr. Glossop, Sir Robert Gower, Mr. Janner, Viscount Lymington, Major Procter, Mr. Shakespeare, and Sir J. Walker Smith.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Holdsworth, and Sir Joseph Lamb; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Reginald Blaker, Mr. Janner, and Mr. Murray-Phillpson.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Metropolitan Police Bill): Lieut. -Commander Bower, Mr. Briant, Miss Cazalet, Mr. Rhys Davies, Sir John Gilmour, Miss Graves, Mr. Grimston, Mr. Hacking, Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Lees-Jones, Major Llewellin, Captain Lumley, Mr. Lunn, Mr. Meller, Major Mills, Brigadier-General Nation, Mr. Raikes, Mr. Selley, Mr. Shakespeare, and Mr. Solicitor General.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Bill): Colonel Crookshank, Mr. Daggar, Mr. Munro, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Alexander Ramsay, Mr. Ross Taylor, Mr. West Russell, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, Mr. Whiteside, and Mr. Charles Williams.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899) (PANEL).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private
Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had added the following Two Members to the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Commander Cochrane and Colonel Crookshank.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE [SAVINGS BANK ANNUITIES].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to provide that all savings bank annuities granted on or after the eleventh day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, in accordance with the tables for calculating the amount of such annuities which were approved by the Treasury on that date shall be deemed to have been lawfully granted, and accordingly shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE [POST OFFICE FUND].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the payment from time to time out of the Consolidated Fund, into a fund to be established under the said Act by the name of the Post Office Fund, of sums to be calculated in the manner provided by the said Act; and
(b) to provide for the payment from time to time out of the fund so established into the Exchequer of sums to be calculated in manner provided by the said Act, and of sums which it is anticipated may become due from that fund to the Exchequer under the provisions of the said Act."

Resolution agreed to.

FINANCE BILL

Further considered in Committee. [Progress, 24th May.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Amendments as to duty on hydrocarbon oils.)

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment which I propose to call is the second one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). In accordance with what I said yesterday, it comes in the group of Amendments which has been described as deferment of the date of the duty, and the hon. Member will realise, therefore, that we shall discuss on the Amendment which I am about to call both that
Amendment and also the later Amendment in the name of the same lion. Member to leave out Sub-section (2).

3.45 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, to leave out the word "April," and to insert instead thereof the word "November."
The purpose of the Amendment is to delay the operation of the tax until the month of November. The reason for putting down the Amendment is evident from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is to give him an opportunity of putting the particular industries in whose interests the tax is being imposed in some sort of order. In replying to the discussion which took place yesterday afternoon on another group of Amendments, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it evident to the House that he had two purposes in view. The first purpose was that which every Chancellor of the Exchequer has in view in imposing a tax, namely, to raise money for the purposes of carrying on the Government. The second purpose which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave yesterday was that it might help the coal industry, and, in elaborating that purpose, he said that he had been informed that by the imposition of the tax, and the fact that a number of oil users might require to go back to the use of coal, there was a possibility of employment for about 12,000 miners. He did not say what might be the number of workers who would be displaced in other industries. He merely referred to the fact that 12,000 miners might be employed if coal of equal fuel value were used instead of oil.
I cannot say definitely, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot say with regard to the number of miners who will be given employment, how many workers may be thrown out of employment as a result of the imposition of this tax, but I can say that in the East and in the West of Scotland, as Leith and at Ardrossan, two orders which had been placed for oil-using vessels have been cancelled. The orders were placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the tax, and immediately after the announcement the orders were cancelled, because, in the opinion of the shipping companies who had ordered those vessels, it would have been un-
remunerative to build the ships and run them on oil upon which a tax had been imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which would have had to be paid. The cost would have been too high to enable them to run the vessels, or at least to look forward with any hope of running them with any possibility of profits being derived from the carrying of cargoes.
We are inclined to the belief that in imposing the tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made too sudden a leap upon the users of oil fuel. He might at least have given them some longer period, so that they might have had an opportunity of developing other methods of using alternative fuels, which would have enabled them to meet the tax. He has given them no such opportunity. During the operation of the tax the users of oil fuel will have to consider the making of arrangements to change into some other method, it may be the method of using coal, thereby employing a certain number of additional workers in that industry; but in the meantime those individuals or companies will have to pay the tax. We wish to put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he is either doing this for the purpose of assisting the coal industry, as he said, or for the purpose of deriving revenue. In either case, he is not facing up to the difficulties that those who use oil fuel are likely to meet.
Has he considered, or have the Government considered, any scheme for transforming, by the processes already known, coal into oil fuel? If that was the purpose of the tax, then practically every Member of the House would agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and the mine owners and mine workers would agree with him, but the Government have come forward with no scheme whereby oil fuel can be taken from coal. They are putting it forward merely as a tax, and leading the House to believe that one purpose is the increased employment of miners. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer really had the interests of the miners at heart, if he was desirous of employing the 12,000 miners to whom he referred, then both he and the Government would have gone carefully into the methods of producing oil from coal in this country. They would have had a scheme prepared and would have had
that scheme put into working operation in time for the imposition of this tax, so that those industries now using oil fuel could have turned over to the using of oil fuel manufactured from coal produced by the miners of this country. That would have helped not only the miners but the Government in deriving revenue from the tax.
If it is a protective tax—I do not think it is, Since it has no relation, I understand, to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and cannot be referred to them—then it is a protective tariff to keep out foreign goods, and it is a revenue tariff to raise revenue for the Government, and the information that the right hon. Gentleman conveyed to the House yesterday afternoon as to the assistance that it was likely to give to the mining industry was beside the point. If it were possible by the end of next week for the users of oil fuel so to transform their plants into coal-using boilers and furnaces, he would lose revenue, but the 12,000 additional miners might be employed. If the Government interested themselves in the development of the methods for producing oil from coal in this country there would be much wider use of that oil than is the case in regard to oil imported from abroad. In that way the right hon. Gentleman would develop an industry in this country, which is a new industry, and at the same time he would be giving greater assistance to the coal mining industry by providing employment for a very much larger additional number than 12.000. The right hon. Gentleman ought to delay the imposition of the tax, so that the Government might have an opportunity of considering the various schemes for producing oil from coal that are in existence, so that they might select that which is considered by the experts to be the best and most economical, and then they ought to put the schemes into operation, if possible, by November of this year. The tax could then become operative against any oil that might be brought into the country. That would give home-produced fuel an opportunity of facing up to the foreign imported oils, and it would also give employment to a large number or mine workers.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. MARTIN: I rise to support the Amendment because I believe its accept-
ance would give time for the examination of the problem in such a way that a great many of the difficulties which at present are not apparent to the Committee might be made clear. Throughout the discussion on this tax there has never been any real evidence that the coal industry is going to benefit to the extent to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped it would benefit. Yesterday I listened for an indication from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had worked out with any appreciable degree of detail how the coal miners were going to be put into work. As one who represents a constituency which is largely a coal mining district, I should be very pleased if I could see that this tax would really mean a considerable reduction in unemployment amongst the coal miners; but after listening to the right hon. Gentleman there were still in my mind many doubts which I have been trying to dissipate by research amongst the various channels open to me to find out how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer could prove his contention to be right. If the operation of this tax were put off until November all those industries that are affected by it would have a chance of showing how far they would be able to give employment to the people engaged in their particular trade. The argument has been put forward that certain trades will be affected adversely. In examining these matters one discounts a certain amount as exaggeration, which is quite natural when a trade is putting forward a case against a proposed tax on its fuel.
I would ask the Chancellor another question. If he is going to say, in reply to this Amendment, that he must have this revenue, it can be pointed out to him that the revenue could be obtained by a different method. If between now and November the amount of revenue which he would stand to lose would be too much, I would suggest that he should put the tax on in a different manner. I would suggest that he should tax lubricating oil to a much greater extent, and that he should leave the tax on kerosene. I could give figures to show that he would obtain by that means a much greater amount of tax in the year than by the present tax. Between now and November he could, by such method of taxation, at least obtain his revenue, and
he could find out from a very careful inquiry among the trades concerned whether employment was going to be improved or worsened. On the other score, not of revenue but of helping the gas industry, I maintain that the agitation which has been aroused as a result of the imposition of this tax has so far benefited the gas industry that it has already obtained a great deal of advantage without the tax actually coming effectively into operation. It has seemed to me, on careful examination, that the main cause why the coal industry and its derivatives have been losing in the fight with oil has been very largely because the coal salesman has not been as good as the oil salesman.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's speech is developing into an argument on the general question. He must confine his remarks strictly to the question of the date at which the tax is to come into operation.

Mr. MARTIN: I quite appreciate your Ruling, and submit to it, but I am trying to point out that there is good and sufficient reason why the tax should be deferred until November. I am trying to point out that gas and the other derivatives of coal have already obtained sufficient advantage by the agitation of the last few weeks to enable the Chancellor to say that it will not suffer if the tax is deferred until November, that it will not necessarily lose ground in the intervening months. I would suggest that the gas industry itself might not object to the tax being deferred until November. I think, perhaps, that all the industries concerned in gas, coke and so on, would admit that they would not lose ground, because their salesmen would have the definite advantage which has been given to them by the general agitation of the last few weeks. If, therefore, the Chancellor says that on the ground of revenue he cannot accept this Amendment, I can suggest ways by which he might get his revenue without damaging the heavy oil users. If he puts it on the score of not being able to help coal and its derivatives sufficiently, I would suggest that the derivatives have already obtained sufficient advantage by the fillip given to the industry by the discussion of the tax. Therefore, I hope that the Chancellor, while still maintaining, perhaps, the principle of attempting
to help the coal industry and coal derivatives, will consider this Amendment as a reasonable one, because it gives him and those concerned sufficient time to consider the implications of the matter in all its aspects and that will be in the interests of all concerned.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: It would be a very great pleasure to support this Amendment if the proposed postponement would result in action by the Government in the direction indicated by the Mover and supporter of the Amendment. If this Amendment would permit of it, I would like to draw the attention of the Government to their lackadaisical method in dealing with the difficulties of the coal trade. As far as the proposed tax is concerned, I am afraid that it will not give to the mining industry the necessary help that this Government ought to give and which this House ought to have begun some months ago. I think it is time that steps should be taken to re-establish prosperity in the mining industry, and not only that, but to take note of the fact that this industry, on which the whole Empire has built its prosperity, is not being given the attention of the Government that it warrants. I would suggest that if postponement would result in the Government and Parliament dealing with the position of the mining industry in a proper way by reorganisation, and giving full consideration to the tremendous possibilities there are, it would be a Godsend not only to the mining industry but to the nation as a whole. I think it is a colossal crime the way the Government have sat Since taking office 18 months ago and not made the slightest attempt to bring back prosperity to the most important industry in the British isles.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, I think, is getting rather away from the Amendment. This is not the occasion for a discussion of Government policy in regard to the coal industry.

Mr. PRICE: The Government did undertake to do something real for the mining industry, and I suggest that if this industry is allowed to go on much longer in the way it has been going for the last few years, you are giving away the greatest asset of this nation, and there is nothing to replace it. There are
vast possibilities both in the production of oil fuel and in the use of pulverised coal if the Government would take action. But I could not support this Amendment, because I have no faith in the Government. If they had made any provision to do anything, it would be a delight to support this Amendment giving them time to do it, but this tax will not bring back the prosperity that is desired in the mining industry and I hope it will not be long before they give way to somebody who has an interest in the industry, and is desirous of bringing it back to prosperity.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to support the Amendment, which has my name against it. I am really astonished that the Committee should have been sidetracked in the way it has been by putting the coal industry up against oil, and engineering and shipbuilding. That has been a deliberate plot put on foot in this House. There is no denying that. They have also brought in the gas industry, which is a very powerful combination in this House, and all the interests have been used with a view to crush what is one of our new industries at its very Inception, when we are geting our feet as far as the Diesel engine is concerned, and when we are being able to compete in this field of engineering in a way that we have never been able to do before. We have just got ourselves set going, and now we find the whole power in this House being turned against it in the most scientific manner possible. And it was done by my own fellow-countryman, the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) yesterday, the whole of this Debate having been sidetracked by the contention that the most modern method was gas, and not oil. We are here to-day to try to save those who have put their all into this business. That is why we wish to insert "November" instead of "April." It is to give us a breathing space. That is all we are asking. We are not asking very much of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there is no doubt that the light hon. Gentleman himself was not very sure of his ground, so much so that at the start of this Debate on oil he himself said that he would wait before he gave his decision; he would hear the discussion of the different points of view on the Floor of the House. But they have
turned it round now as if the action of the Chancellor is in defence of the coal industry. It is all so much nonsense, and I am sorry to see that all my colleagues who represent colliery divisions have fallen into the trap.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Not all of us.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Member may not, but it was evident yesterday when we came to a vote that it was done in such an artful manner that a number of my colleagues fell into the trap. I hope they are not going to do it to-day. I hope the Committee will see that we are trying to do what we can to save the situation for some time, that is, the difference betwixt April and November. There are many instances which could be given to justify what we are doing. I know several cases where new factories have been established in which the Diesel engine has been installed. It is impossible for them to instal gas. Gas, as understood by those who were putting forward the proposition yesterday, presupposes that you are either near a big still or near a large industrial centre. There are many new industries being established in this country that are not adjacent to either of those, and they have installed the Diesel engine. It will spell ruin to them, unless the Chancellor is going to give some concession in cases such as these. Then, again, it is going to cripple our coastal trade.

The CHAIRMAN: That will come on a later Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I agree. I will not transgress on that, but I would appeal to every section of the Committee, because if ever there were something that was not a party question, this is it. Hon. Members in this House who do big business know perfectly well that this is no party matter, but they have taken advantage of the inexperience of some hon. Members to sidetrack them into voting in a manner which they were led to believe was for the benefit of the working classes. They were not doing anything of the kind; they were voting against the working classes.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: The last thing I desire to do is to put any impediment in the way of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer doing something to revive the mining industry. We do not accept the stories which were told yesterday by hon. Members representing small industries. There is a justifiable reason for delaying the imposition of this tax. In the first place, it should be ascertained whether it will have any serious effect on the manufacture of the Diesel engine in this country. If that manufacture was impaired it would have a detrimental effect on the mining industry. If it would prevent- the absorption of steel which goes into the manufacture of the Diesel engine, in that way the mining industry would be affected. There is, also, a case for making further inquiries as to whether the imposition of the tax would mean that more miners would be engaged by the prevention of the importation of oil into this country. That is the only way by which miners can be employed in larger numbers, by producing coal which would be consumed in those factories which are now consuming oil. That, I believe, is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in mind. On the other hand, there is the point as to whether the manufacture of the Diesel engine, or any kind of technique which now gives employment to steel workers and persons in the ancillary trades, would mean that more miners would be employed in the production of pig-iron. This point should be considered, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have further time to reflect on all these matters which ultimately affect the employment or non-employment of miners.
Figures which were given last week from the Ministry of Labour indicated that 40,000 more miners were unemployed during the last 12 months than in the year previous. The Government have made no attempt to tackle the mining problem. If they did they would at once institute a National Board and eliminate all the petty competition which now takes place. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts up the argument that it may mean that 12,000 more miners will be at work, he is really making an apology for the ineffectiveness of Government action during the last 18 months. We are not pressing the Amendment because we desire to put any impediment in the way of the engagement of more miners. We are anxious that the industry should be properly re-
organised, unified and treated as a national concern, and that all the petty squabbling which is taking place in the production of steel and coal should be eliminated. We have to be convInced that this tax will fulfil what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in mind. Will it engage 12,000 extra miners? Will it mean that oil will come into this country in smaller quantities? Will it tend to affect the production of the Diesel engine, with a detrimental effect on the mining industry? We hope the Government will accept the Amendment as one coming from the mining industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may have arrived at certain deductions from certain figures, but it may be that the figures upon which those deductions have been made may not be thoroughly sound.

4.21 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I want to ask the Financial Secretary whether he-will answer a question which I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, which no doubt he ovErieoked in the course of the many speeches he had to make, and that is, what is the policy of the Government as regards the matter of oil duties? I entirely agree that we ought to take a broad view of this matter, not a sectional view, as to whether it assists particular industries with which we are connected or which thrive or not in our own constituencies. In this proposal we are taxing one of the great primary commodities used in this country for manufactures, used as a fuel and in other ways. You cannot play fast and loose with these great commodities, change the tax upon them, without any declared policy, unless you are going to do a great deal of harm to industry. I ask whether this tax is to be regarded as a first step in the taxation of fuel oil, or as a final tax?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that I can allow the Financial Secretary to answer that question on this particular Amendment. It might come up on the question of the Clause standing part. The hon. and learned Member is dealing with the tax as a whole rather than with the date at which the tax shall come into operation.

Sir S. CRIPPS: But the policy behind the tax is a vital matter in regard to
the date upon which it shall operate. Unless the Government have some policy I am asking that they shall delay its operation until they have found a policy. Before we give authority for the tax to come into operation at once I want to know whether there is a policy, and I want to be able to judge whether that policy has been sufficiently developed to make it wise for the Committee to authorise the tax immediately or whether, in view of their statement, the Government should not have more time to think out their policy. That is why we do not think that the tax should come into operation until November next. I have spoken of the uncertainty which this leaves in the minds of those concerned with the great industries which use this material as a fuel. Yesterday the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) spoke of various alternative forms of fuel. I should like to ask whether the Government have any policy as regards the development of gas; or whether they will have a policy by November next?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I really cannot allow a repetition of yesterday's Debate. The Amendment before the Committee is simply a question as to the date; whether the tax should be imposed at this particular date or some other date.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Am I not in order in pointing out that until industrialists in this country know the purpose of the Government this tax should not be imposed? And that they should be given time, after knowing the policy of the Government—if the Government have one—to decide what they are going to do with their plant; whether they will reconvert it or continue to use oil in spite of the extra taxation? Am I not entitled to ask the Government whether they have any policy so that industrialists may know?

The CHAIRMAN: I think that is in order, but with a strict limitation to questions of policy arising out of this tax. To discuss policy generally is not in order.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I will confine myself strictly to policy arising out of the fuel tax. The industrialist has to consider at once, if the incidence of this tax is not delayed, whether he is to convert his
plant. Is that what the Government want him to do? If he is to convert it, to what form are the Government anxious that he should convert it? Is it, necessarily, to some coal burning form of plant? If the object of the Government is to prevent people burning oil and make them burn coal then, presumably, the Government have worked out some plan as to the future use of power, and power creating instruments in this country. We want the Financial Secretary to tell us, so that we can make up our mind as to whether the tax should be postponed or not, whether this is merely an isolated revenue raising protective tax or whether it is part of a considered fuel policy of the Government. If it is I hope the hon. Member will tell us what the policy is. Is it to encourage the pulverisation of fuel, the hydrogenation of coal, to get our own home oil supplies; is it low temperature carbonisation; or whatever the process may be. It is only in the light of these considerations that the Committee can properly make up its mind as to whether the tax should be imposed now or postponed for six months, to allow manufacturers to adjust themselves to the incidence of the tax and determine what they are going to do, and how they are to do it in order to assist in carrying out the Government's policy.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. HANNON: I find it somewhat difficult to follow the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) because he wants to turn every possible argument he can to the disadvantage of the National Government. I have considerable sympathy with the Amendment. I suggest that this tax has been introduced without sufficient consideration for the varied interests involved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have received in the course of the last few weeks a multitude of representations, not merely from small industries but from large industries as to the incidence of this taxation. Representing an industrial community I consider that it would have been desirable if the Treasury, in preparing the financial statement for the year, had examined more carefully the extent to which employment in the industries now using fuel oil would be affected by the tax. I think it would be useful, indeed it would be very much appre-
ciated by a large number of struggling industrialists, if the introduction of this duty could be postponed for a period until more exhaustive inquiry were made as to the extent to which industry would be affected and the extent to which employment in industry would be affected.
I hope I shall not be regarded as saying anything very violent if I express the hope that more consideration might be given by the Treasury, in many instances where taxation is proposed without adequate regard to the interests immediately involved. It would be very helpful if we were not merely told that this duty would employ 12,000 men in the mining industry, with the resuscitation of which everyone has sympathy, but also if we were told the extent to which that would react on the employment in industries to which the tax would apply. I am told on good authority that many of our industries in the Black Country and Midlands, and above all the glass industry, are dependent for their continued efficiency on fuel oil and cannot carry on without fuel oil. They will suffer immediate loss and will have to put on the roadside large numbers of men who are now employed. That is a very serious consideration. I respectfully submit to my right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be helpful if he could see his way, in order more fully to examine all the considerations involved, to postpone the time when this duty is to come into operation.

4.33 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I find it somewhat embarrassing to reply upon this Amendment, because the whole question of policy has been raised by various speakers, and you, Mr. Chairman, have ruled that out of order.

Sir S. CRIPPS: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Gentleman entitled to give an answer to a question which you said that I was entitled to ask, as to the Government policy?

The CHAIRMAN: Up to a certain point that is so. The hon. and learned Member will quite understand that, although an alternative policy is a matter which may be referred to as an argument against a particular Amendment, yet the wide discussion of alternative policies is not a matter which would be in order on an
Amendment of this kind. I allowed the hon. and learned Gentleman and some other speakers to go rather far, because I am always unwilling to curb an Opposition unnecessarily in matters of that kind, but the discussion must be kept within certain limits, and I shall have to watch and see that the hon. Gentleman who is replying does not go beyond those limits.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I merely asked what the policy was, and not what any alternative policy was.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It was because I was so anxious not to disappoint my hon. Friends who have raised this matter that I called attention to the fact that the Ruling of the Chair would necessarily limit me, and that I could not extend over the whole field. The Amendment under discussion and the one which follows are narrow Amendments. One Seeks to postpone the operation of the Customs Duty until November, and the other seeks to cancel the Excise Duty altogether. Of course, the effect of the first Amendment would be that we should get only four months' tax in the course of the financial year, and the effect of the second Amendment would be that all the stock in the country would escape payment of Excise Duty. That is the narrow and immediate effect of the Amendments. It has to be borne in mind that the duty is already in force, and that when a duty of this kind is imposed it is advisable, in the interests of the revenue, that it should operate the moment it is announced. That is, of course, what happened in this particular case. Otherwise, and if the spirit of these Amendments were to be accepted, you would be giving notice to all the importers of oil that they had a certain period in which to accumulate stocks and to escape the tax altogether. It would be quite impracticable in cases of this kind to give a long period of notice.

Mr. MARTIN: Surely it would be quite possible to avoid that by making it quite clear that in November all the stocks would similarly be taxed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, and in this matter we have followed the precedent of previous cases. In order to prevent evasion it is clearly desirable that a duty of this kind should have effect from the
moment it is announced. So much for the purely technical effect of the Amendment. Those who have spoken have asked that the tax should be delayed for two purposes. The Mover of the Amendment said in effect: "Delay this tax for four months until you have made sure that there is a satisfactory and profitable method of extracting oil from coal." I am sure he appreciates, from the previous discussions, that the policy of the Government is far wider than that. It is not merely for the purpose of extracting oil from coal, but it is for the purpose of encouraging the direct use of coal and its derivatives, coke, electricity, and so forth. It is not for giving a breathing-space or time in which a lucrative method of extracting oil from coal can be devised.
The other grounds on which the Amendment has been advanced are, first, that notice should be given to British industrialists in order that they may have time to convert their plants from one type of fuel to another. What about those people who have already, under this tax, planned to change back from oil to coal? There have been letters in the newspapers from hotels and other enterprises, in which statements have been made that schemes are already in existence—I do not know on how large a scale—to take advantage of this duty and to return to a form of heating or power which is derived from coal. It would be a gross deception to those who under the aegis of this tax have made these preparations were we now to betray them by taking the tax off altogether. An hon. Member said that if it were merely a question of revenue he would suggest alternative means of getting the revenue. He wanted a higher tax on lubricating oil. Lubricating oil is an essential in all industries, and there is no particular justification for putting the whole of the financial burden of this tax upon one kind of oil. Besides it would infringe the general policy which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced, of encouraging the use of coal and its derivatives.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked some very wide questions, which I do not propose to answer in detail because they exceed the scope of the Amendment. He asked whether it was our policy that industrialists should convert their plants. Undoubtedly, wherever that can suitably be done, it is. He asked what they were to
do. In each particular case it is a matter of the technical considerations of the industry concerned, but the Goal Utilisation Council and the Gas Council are ready to advise any industrialist or any private person as to the best uses of the fuel over which they have control. In any event I do not think that any industrialist will now be in any doubt. It is our purpose, and we have succeeded in effecting it, to show that oil is not going to be put in a favoured position, and is not going to become a vested interest free of all tax, and we have given a plain indication of what the general lines of our policy are.

4.55 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I rather agree with the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) in deprecating the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that the Government should produce a plan. It was an unkind suggestion. Of course the Government have not got a plan. It would be most exceptional if they had. In this particular case it is even more ridiculous to suppose that there is a plan, for the whole thing is obvious. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted revenue, and he saw that if he imposed this particular tax he could call in aid the almost unanimous opinion of this House in favour of protecting something or everything. But this particular Amendment has nothing to do with Protection at all. It is solely a question of a tax, and nothing else. The extra 12,000 miners whom we are to see at work owing to the beneficent action of this tax, will not be affected in the least by postponing the imposition of the tax until November. Notice has been given, the tax is coming on in November, and the effects, so far as the coal trade is concerned, will be exactly the same as if the tax was imposed now. All that the Amendment does is to leave in being the enormous advantage that these trades are to get from this tax, but at the same time to reduce the revenue side of the tax.
If the Amendment were carried the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose this year about £1,500,000 of revenue. That is all there is in it. I would ask the hon. Gentleman opposite, who is the yoke-fellow of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer in this enterprise, not to put forward again the argument that if this tax was postponed the country would be flooded with untaxed fuel oil and that the manufacturers and Shell-Mex would get away with it. It would not have that effect in the least. When this tax was imposed three weeks ago it was imposed on all oil in the country, as well as on all oil coming into the country. If it is put off until November, in the same way it will go upon all the oil in the country. The only effect will be to exempt from tax the oil actually used between now and November. As far as this Bill or this Government is concerned, it will be a loss of revenue of £1,500,000 but the protective value of the tax, if it has any protective value, will remain as at present. All we are considering is the revenue question, whether we want to take £1,500,000 from the industries which have gone in for the use of fuel oil or whether it would not be more generous on the part of the Government to give them a breathing space and time in which to change over if they wish to do so.
The Financial Secretary was almost pathetic in his desire not to do anything now which would injure those who, according to letters in the Press—which I have not seen—are arranging to change over from oil fuel to coal. The letters which I have seen were all from suppliers of oil who said that tome people were going to change over, but I have not seen any letters from people who said they were going to make the change themselves. The Financial Secretary made a pathetic but no doubt thoroughly justifiable appeal that we ought to stand by the proprietors of blocks of flats and hotels—half a dozen perhaps at the outside—who have decided in view of the tax to make the change. They cannot have incurred very great expense. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary think rather of all those thousands of people who, relying on general theories of what constitutes fair taxation, have put their Capttal into oil fuel methods of firing.
In the case of the transport trade, when the Government are dealing with motor cars and lorries they give a breathing space to the people who have put their Capttal into solid-tyred vehicles before saying, "You must convert to pneumatic
tyres." I forget how many years have been allowed in that case but I think it is a matter of years. All we are asking in this case is that the people who have put their money into a particular form of firing should be given not years but eight months' breathing space—only eight months in which to write off all the Capttal cost which will be incurred if they have to convert to other forms of firing, and in which to adjust forward contracts for the supply of goods at prices based upon a fuel 40 per cent. cheaper than that which they will actually have to use in the production of those goods. There are forward contracts for thousands of pounds which will be affected by this proposal. There are large sums invested in plants which may have to be scrapped. The Government might give those concerned eight months in which to write off that expense and get rid of their contracts in order that they may not be completely ruined by Government action.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday made it clear that he had three objects in this proposal. The first was protection, which we need not deal with here. The second object was to safeguard the revenue from the Petrol Tax. The right hon. Gentleman apparently was afraid that if this heavy oil was not taxed, science and invention would devise methods of using heavy oils where light oils are used at present. That question is not affected in the least by this Amendment. The knowledge that the tax is going to be imposed in November is quite enough to prevent people experimenting any further with the use of heavy oil to take the place of a light oil. The third object was revenue and that is the only object with which we are concerned here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Coal!"] Coal is not affected by this Amendment. The knowledge that the tax is going to be put on in November will have exactly the same protective effect on the coal trade, by checking people who were about to adopt oil burning. It is the revenue question with which we are concerned here and, as regards revenue, I think we might all with clear consciences whether we are Protectionists or Free Traders, ask for the Amendment.
The Chancellor said yesterday that progress might lie in various directions.
Progress can be forward or backward. Progress hitherto has been the result of invention inspired by the desire to reduce costs. It has been the result of every individual thinking out for himself what was best for his own business. Now, for the first time the Government—not the Labour party—have devised a method of the State direction of progress. It is no longer to be left to the individual managing his own business to decide in what way industry is to progress. The Government have taken it in hand. This is State Socialism of the most drastic character and, of course, I welcome it—

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not now going to improve on the example of earlier speakers in going outside the scope of the Amendments to try and discuss State socialism.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was getting on to the same ground and if I may say so, Sir Dennis, you were quite right to intervene. State Socialism, from whatever side it comes, is, of course, desirable but that is all the more reason why we should require the State Socialists to have some plan and some idea of the direction in which they are going. The eight months for which we ask would give them a breathing space and an opportunity to produce their plan. In addition to the arguments which can be advanced from the point of view of the victims of this new tax, I urge that the Government themselves ought to have a breathing space in order to decide the direction in which they intend to force the manufacturers of this country to go.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: I Sincerely hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not succumb to the enticing and persuasive appeal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). The right hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded his remarks by asking the Government whether they had a plan. As I understand it, the plan of His Majesty's Government is to give some direct encouragement to the use of coal as against the use of oil. It is obvious that the main consideration in the minds of the Treasury is not so much one of revenue—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Is not the question at issue on this Amendment solely one of revenue?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is so. At the same time I think the hon. and gallant Member is getting beyond the scope of the Amendment. There are two Amendments to be discussed and two only, one deferring the date on which the Customs Tax comes into operation, and the other getting rid of the Excise Tax on existing stocks.

Captain EVANS: I was endeavouring to address myself to the first Amendment dealing with the postponement from April to November. If we did that the coal industry would lose a great opportunity which presents itself now for demonstrating the advantages of coal as at present used in great industries throughout the country and of showing that the methods in use are far superior to the methods which were employed even a few months ago.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Member represents a division of Cardiff and Cardiff mainly depends on the export trade in coal. How will the release of all this oil for the export market affect the export coal trade?

Captain EVANS: I see the point which the hon. Member has in mind but I feel that the proposals of the Government go

a long way towards encouraging those experiments which we know have been carried out with such vigilance and care in order to see how far it is practicable to extract oil from coal on a commercial basis instead of using imported oil. With all respect to the hon. Member that is a question which is causing grave anxiety to the coal interests in Cardiff. As I have said, it is obvious that the Government are, in this instance, having regard to more than the question of revenue. I do not desire to go outside the Rulings which have been given on the scope of this discussion but it is obvious that the Government have in mind the fact that by imposing a tax of this kind at this time they are giving the best possible encouragement to the consumption of coal as against oil. Various arguments have been introduced to show that oil is more practicable and is cleaner in use than coal—

The CHAIRMAN: That was the subject of a Debate yesterday.

Captain EVANS: In view of the fact that I am approximately 24 hours late I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, and I do not propose to deal further with that question.

Question put, "That the word 'April' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 54.

Division No. 194.]
AYES.
[4 58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Browne, Captain A. C.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Adams. Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Davison, Sir William Henry


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Burnett, John George
Denville, Alfred


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Dickie, John P.


Apsley, Lord
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Donner, P. W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Campbell.Johnston, Malcolm
Doran, Edward


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Drewe, Cedric


Balniel, Lord
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Duggan, Hubert John


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th. S.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Barglay-Harvey, C. M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dunglass, Lord


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Eady, George H.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J. A.(Birm.W)
Eastwood, John Francis


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.)
Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Clarke, Frank
Elmley, Viscount


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Emrye- Evans, p. V.


Birchall, Ma)or Sir John Dearman
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Entwistie, Cyril Fullard


Blindell, James
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Bossom, A. C.
Conant, R. J. E.
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Boulton, W. W.
Cook, Thomas A.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cooke, Douglas
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Everard, W. Lindsay


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Fermoy, Lord


Broadbent, Colonel John
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Fielden, Edward Brockiehuret


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Crossley, A. C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Fox, Sir Gilford


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Salt, Edward W.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Glossop, C. W. H.
Loder, Captain J, de Vere
Scone, Lord


Gluckstein, Louie Halle
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Glyn, Major Raiph G. C.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Goldie, Noel B.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stater, John


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Graham, Sir F. Fergut (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nichulas
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Grimston, R. v.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Smithers, Waldron


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Maitland, Adam
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Soper, Richard


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hales, Harold K.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonal John
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Hartington, Marquess of
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hartland, George A.
Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stevenson, James


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes;
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morgan, Robert H.
Stones, James


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Storey, Samuel


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Strauss, Edward A.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Moss, Captain H, J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Munro, Patrick
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hepworth, Joseph
Nation, Brigadier-General 1. J. H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Summersby, Charles H.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
North, Edward T,
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hornby, Frank
Palmer, Francis Noel
Thompson, Luke


Horsbrugh, Florence
Penny, Sir George
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Vaughan-Morgan. Sir Kenyon


Hurd, Sir Percy
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)
Wallace, Captain O. E. (Hornsey)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pike, Cecil F.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Iveagh, Countess of
Potter, John
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
PowNail, sir Assheton
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Watt, Captain Gecrge Steven H.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wayland, Sir William A.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rankin, Robert
Wedderburn, Henry James Serymgeour-


Ker, J. Campbell
Ray, Sir William
Whiteslds, Borras Noel H.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham*
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Kimball, Lawrence
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Knight, Hollord
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Renwick, Major Gustay A.
Wilson, Clyde T. (west Toxteth)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Robinson, John Roland
Wise, Alfred R.


Law, Sir Alfred
Ropner, Colonel L
Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ross Taylor. Walter (Woodbridge)
Wragg, Herbert


Lees-Jones, John
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Young, Rt. Hon.Sir Hilton (S'V'noaks)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)



Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Lewis, Oswald
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Sir Victor Warrender and Captain




Austin Hudson.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Harris, Sir Percy
Price, Gabriel


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, George Henry
Rea, Walter Russell


Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Briant, Frank
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cowan, D. M.
Kirkwood, David
Thome, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, Gecrge
Leckie, J. A.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Liddall, Walter S.
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, Capt, Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKezie (Banff)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesoro'.W.)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
except where the oils are not for use as fuel.

I move this formally.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment on the Paper—in page 5, line 10, to leave out the words "seven pence" and to insert instead thereof the words "seven pence halfpenny"—deals with the rate of duty, and with it could be discussed an Amendment two pages later on, also in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and two other hon. Members—in page 5, line 21, to leave out the word "penny" and to insert instead thereof the word "halfpenny." The subject of the discussion, therefore, will be the rate of the Customs duty or the rate of the Excise duty on existing stocks.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. KIRKW00D: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, to leave out the words "seven pence," and to insert instead thereof the words "seven pence halfpenny."
The idea of this Amendment is simply to hinder this tax. We have to use every artifice left to us by the Rules of the House, and we are simply using this as

a means of protesting against this tax. We think we have a distinct grievance against the Government for putting this tax on oil. The case against the tax has been stated very ably from all sides of the Committee; but our party has made certain arrangements which we desire to keep, otherwise we could keep the Committee going all night on Amendments which we have put down purposely. It is quite legitimate for us to hold up business, but we have no desire to do so to-day. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to giving us this small concession, we would not divide the Committee; otherwise, we shall have to do so.

5.10 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has been so very candid in his explanation of the purpose of the Amendment that I do not think it necessary for me to say very much in reply, except that I accept his description of the Amendment as a wrecking Amendment, designed purely to hinder the tax, and in these circumstances he will hardly expect me to accept it.

Question put, "That the words 'seven pence' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 46.

Division No. 195.]
AYES.
[5.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Adamt, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brown,Brig.-Gen.H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Davison, Sir William Henry


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colanel Charles
Browne, Captain A. C.
Denville, Alfred


Albery, Irving James
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Lesile
Dickie, John p.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Burnett, John George
Donner, P. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Doran, Edward


Anstruther-Gray, W, J.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Drewe, Cedric


Apsley, Lord
Calne, G. R. Hall-
Duggan, Hubert John


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Dunglass, Lord


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Castlereagh, viscount
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Balniel, Lord
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Elmley, Viscount


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cayzer, Ma). Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Clarke, Frank
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Clayton Dr. George C.
Falle, sir Bertram G.


Birchall, Major sir John Dearman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fermoy, Lord


Blatter, Sir Reginald
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst


Blindell, James
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Conant, R. J. E.
Fox, Sir Gifford


Bossom, A. C.
Cook, Thomas A.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Boulton, W. W.
Cooke, Douglas
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cooper, A. Duff
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Bawyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootle)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Broadbent, Colonel John
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Glossop, C. W. H.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick
Salt, Edward W.


Glyn. Major Raiph G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Goff, Sir Park
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Goldie, Noel B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Scone, Lord


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McKie, John Hamilton
Selley, Harry R.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Grimston, R. V.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Maitland, Adam
Slater, John


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hales, Harold K.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smithers, Waldron


Hanley, Dennis A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Harvey, George (Lambeth'.Kenn'gt'n)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Soper, Richard


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Stevenson, James


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Hepworth, Joseph
Munro, Patrick
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Stones, James


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hornby, Frank
North, Edward T.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Horsbrugh, Florence
O'Connor, Terence James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hacknsy, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt Hon. William G.A.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hudson, Robert spear (Southport)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Thompson, Luke


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Peto, Sir E.(Devon, Barnstaple)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hurd, Sir Percy
Peto, Geoffrey K.('w'verh'pt'n.Blist'n)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyoa


Hurst, Sir Gerald S.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pike, Cecil F.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Potter, John
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
PowNail, Sir Assheton
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Kimball, Lawrence
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Rankin, Robert
Wells, Sydney Richard


Law, Sir Alfred
Ray, Sir William
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Lees-Jones, John
Held. Capt. A. Cunningham-
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Lewis, Oswald
Renter, John R.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Renwick. Major Gustay A.
Wise, Alfred R.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Robinson, John Roland
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ross, Ronald D.
Wragg, Herbert


Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Hots Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'V'noaks)


Lovat-Fraser, Jamee Alexander
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)



Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ruesell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lymington, Viscount
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Sir George Penny and MajorGeorge


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Davies.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & zetl'nd)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Bailey, Erie Alfred George
Harris, Sir Percy
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Briant, Frank
Holdsworth, Herbert
Pickering, Ernest H.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Walter Russell


Cove, William G.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Edwards, Charles
Liddall, Walter S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Wish Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:

"other than oil used for power production."

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment which I propose to call deals with the question of ships. It is the new Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen), and the discussion on it can cover all the other Amendments dealing with ships, whether overseas or coastwise vessels.

5.25 p.m.

Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
except in respect of oils used as fuel in any vessel whether trading overseas or coastwise.
I want to put such a ease before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I trust he will be able to withdraw all shipping entirely from the purview of this duty. Yesterday, in dealing with the general question of oils, excluding shipping, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for reasons which he fully explained, was not prepared to give any concessions, but he intimated that on the Report stage, if any cases of hardship came up, he would be prepared to consider them. On Second Reading he also said that he would give careful consideration to any point which might arise. Whether he will give favourable consideration is another matter. In any case, I know that before he gives any answer he will want a full and fair statement of the case. I therefore desire on behalf of those interests that are covered by the Amendment to state the case as briefly and as precisely as I can. My right hon. Friend said yesterday that the first thing to do was to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the Oil Duty, and that is what I propose to do. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give this matter his close attention, because I need hardly remind him or the Committee that in touching the shipping of this country he is touching one of the most vital interests with which the country is concerned. I doubt whether many people realise, even those who have all their lives had to do with shipping, how far something that seems to be apparently harmless on one side of the matter is, when searched out. found to have a deep and serious effect on the whole industry.
Therefore, when we begin to consider what is to be done with shipping, we have to take very serious thought in the
general interests of one of the greatest and most important industries of the country. There is no doubt that the decision arrived at yesterday to consider shipping separately from the other questions was a sound and proper decision. I can appreciate that there is a kind of family resemblance between this question and the other questions, but when we begin to study it all the arguments that were made yesterday go into the distance, because there are much more vital and direct arguments dealing exclusively with our national shipping. It is, therefore, important that we should not confuse the issue by treating shipping as if it were part of the ordinary industries of the country. It is nothing of the kind. It is totally different in its origin, its methods and everything concerned in it. Therefore, although the arguments with regard to other industries may appear at first sight to apply to shipping, they must fail when put to the test that must be made when we are dealing with such a worldwide and national question, and we have to realise that special conditions and special matters have to be considered in connection with this subject.
In his brief and lucid speech yesterday, the Chancellor pointed out that he had two objects in mind when putting forward this duty. One was naturally to obtain revenue, but there is no doubt from what he said that he had behind it a deliberate and very proper idea of doing everything he could to develop the coal industry which, with shipping— though not so much as shipping—has made the country what it is. Therefore, it is a very sound and statesmanlike proposal of the Chancellor to encourage and develop that industry upon which much depends. It is to be regretted, however, that he should have brought in a proposal which, to a certain extent, will be injurious to the other great industry of this country. I think that I am safe in saying that the total amount of revenue that this proposed tax on shipping will involve is somewhere about £150,000, and it is a very expensive £150,000. The revenue question is one of which the Chancellor knows more than I do, but I think the Committee will agree that the amount of revenue in question does not provide a sufficiently strong argument for disturbing the shipping methods of this country.
The importance of developing the coal trade of this country has been referred to, but I would like to know how we can hope to develop the use of coal by this tax on that portion of the shipping plying round our coasts which uses oil fuel? Those who know the facts, and I am sure they cannot be unknown to the Chancellor and to the Treasury, know that a very large number of coastal vessels are laid up at the present moment because they are not suitable to carry on their trade economically in these difficult times. The coastal trade is holding on only by the skin of its teeth, in face of the modern methods of transport which have replaced the old carrying methods which were followed for centuries. In the past 50 years we have seen no increase in the trade done by coastal vessels, and, indeed, there has been the greatest difficulty in maintaining the amount of trade which is done at the present time. It is impossible to compare the position of coastwise shipping with the position of transport by road and rail. I would point out, further, that the oil-burning vessels in the coastal trade cannot be expected to go back to coal. They are the vessels which have survived in the trade by the process of natural selection. Without them the coasting trade would not have survived to the extent that it has done. In recent years many of us have been doing the best we can to develop it in the interests of shipping and in the interests of the ports of this country.
It will be noted that this Amendment covers not only coastal shipping but overseas shipping. People wonder why it covers overseas shipping. The effect of this tax is bound to hit overseas shipping. In the last year or two there has been a great development in the direction of short cruises in ocean-going steamers. That development has just enabled a large number of ocean-going steamers to carry on and pay their way. What would happen unless overseas shipping were included in this Amendment? Vessels not "going foreign" would be in the same category as coastal shipping, and would have to pay this enormous extra burden on their fuel bills. Then there is the case of the overseas ship which completes her voyage at one port here and, after discharging her cargo, proceeds to another port in this country, in ballast maybe, to pick up
another cargo, or it may be to lie up or to undergo repairs. She can only clear coastwise for that. If she has to pay this enormous extra cost on her fuel it will be a direct encouragement, though an unintentional one, I admit, for ships to be sent abroad for repairs.
I am afraid it has not been fully realised how this new duty will hit shipping at every turn. There are the vessels which go out to the lighthouses round the coast, there are the pilot boats, and the boats of harbour commissioners, all of which are busy looking after a vital trade in this country. If we look at the position carefully, we must realise that it is impossible for us to start penalising a great industry in this way. It is a matter calling for very grave consideration, and I have great confidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has promised that he will give consideration wherever a real case can be made out, will consider the position of shipping. Then there is the case of ships which are launched from yards in this country and which make their trial trips. It makes no difference whether they are to be engaged in coastwise traffic or otherwise; whether they are cargo-carrying boats or men of war, the trial trips will obviously be dearer coatswise unless they "clear foreign."[may be wrong, and I know that I have two of the most acute Members in the House listening to what I am saying— and I am glad to think that they are listening in a friendly spirit—but on the face of it it seems clear that everything that is not going foreign is going to be taxed under this proposal.
Another point to which I should like to turn is the question why the coastal trade should have been picked out. What has it done to be singled out in this way? It is a vital branch of our shipping, it is the nursery of our mercantile marine and of our Navy. The only answer to that question that I can see is provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself when he indicated that in his opinion all forms of transport in this country should be taxed. But I cannot help feeling that when he said that he ovErieoked the fact that there are two totally different aspects of that question. Carriage by road and rail, which has developed a hundredfold in the last few years, is one thing, and coastal shipping, which is just where it was, is a totally different thing. It has a four or five times longer haul
to make in taking goods to their destination, and it is only available for certain purposes; and it is also of the greatest help to overseas shipping by providing for the transhipment of goods and carrying on transport from the larger docks to the minor ports of this country.
An important consideration which must not be ovErieoked is that road and rail transport in this country have no foreign competition to face, whereas coastal shipping has, though here there is a danger of misunderstanding, and I do "not want to mislead this House in the way that I myself might have been misled about it. It may be asked why no provision has been made to demand from the foreigner who deliberately engages in the coastal trade that he should pay the same tax as British coastal shipping. If that is the only idea of protecting us from foreign competition, I venture to suggest that those who have put that suggestion forward have not appreciated the position of affairs. I do not blame them for that failure. I do not set up as an authority on this matter, but I have been working in this particular trade with the object of developing it for the past 12 months, and therefore, possibly, I am in a better position than most people to put the matter before the Committee. It is true that a foreign vessel engaged on a British coastal voyage, and clEarlng from one British port to another British port, would have to pay on all the oil that is used, but I understand that they get a rebate as soon as they "clear foreign." But what happens in practice? It is very often the case that vessels come with a cargo from the Continent—free oil—and then proceed to load a part cargo for the Continent and a part cargo for a British coastwise port, but of course they "clear foreign," and so they would be able to get their fuel free of tax, and that is a clear case of unfair competition with British vessels. Further, some of these foreign coasters are specially built and modern vessels; they are really a new type of vessel competing in our home coastwise trade.
It may be said that only 1 per cent. of our coastal trade is done by foreign vessels, but that is a general statement covering the whole of the coastal work, and that argument does not in the least help those for whom I am speaking.
Directly we come to the question of tramp steamers or bulk-cargo steamers, the picture is a different one, because in the smaller ports the foreigner has been getting into the trade to an increasing extent. Our shipowners have taken special steps to try to stop this competition, and they have been so successful that the foreigner was beginning to consider selling his ships to our people. There are some ports which cannot afford to dredge their channels, but they can take light oil-burning ships and these foreign vessels have been trading with those places. As I have said, our people have been meeting that competition, but we cannot hope to be successful if there is to be an addition of 40 or 50 per cent. to the cost of oil fuel. Another point is that the foreign coaster spends, perhaps, half the year trading on his own coasts. He has free oil, and the cost of running his ship is to that extent lower. Afterwards he makes one or two voyages to this country, and naturally he is then in a better position to compete for trade here than our shipowners, who have been trading all the year round on our coasts and running at a much higher cost for fuel. The foreigner can "scoop" some good freights and go off again. An important point which I wish to bring out is that here we are dealing with a development of our shipping which is in its initial stages, and we cannot make comparisons with other transport which is concerned merely with home trade and operates on terra firma.
I come to my next point—what is the coastal trade? The term "coastal trade," as I understand it to be applied in this connection, refers to all voyages made by vessels from one port in the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland to another port in the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland. That embraces all the island services, all the services to outlying districts which are difficult to serve and which often can be served only by steamers. Is it proposed to put a special burden on all these outlying districts? They certainly will feel the burden if this tax is imposed, and even if it does not materially cripple the resources, as it will, of many of the shipping companies, it will involve higher expenditure or a reduced service. I do not want anybody to imagine that in what I am saying I am doing more
than explaining what must be clear to anybody who has studied the question, but what, I feel, cannot have been in the minds of the Treasury when this tax was imposed. I am responding to the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and trying to put before him a case where there will be undoubted hardship and a real unfairness if this tax is imposed.
Here is another important point. It has already been refered to, but I must mention it again, and my hon. Friends from Ulster will certainly appreciate the importance of it. A vessel clears for Dublin and a vessel clears for Belfast. The one has to pay some 40 to 50 per cent. more for its fuel oil than the other. This is a pure and simple case because it works out that we are subsidising the Irish Free State's interests against our own. I cannot see how that can ever have been intended, and I am sure that it was not. I feel confident that that kind of point will be reconsidered and remedied by the Chancellor, who has always taken a very sound and fair view. I cannot always agree with him, but I can say that. This is one of those cases about which I am convInced there is great grievance, and, owing to the vital importance of this question, I consider that it is a national issue, and ought to be faced as such.
I want to point out the effect that this is going to have upon the processes to which I have referred, those of development and elimination, in order to give the best service that this country can give to aid British shipping and to make it paramount to any other shipping in the world. The shipping industry has given the best possible service to all trades otherwise, how should we have to-day such an infinitely greater proportion of the carrying trade in the world? British shipping has always proved itself of immense value. Merely by the natural development of things, and in the course of trade, we have provided this service. Coastal shipping is inextricably linked up with the rest of shipping, and it is sheer folly—I can use no other word—to attempt to distinguish between coastal shipping and overseas or any other kind of snipping. The shipping industry is a complete whole, and it is vital to the interests of this country that we should not disturb it in the way that appears likely from the operation of this duty.
I feel strongly, and I am sure that the Committee see that I am speaking with firm conviction. I do not believe that this duty is to be proceeded with, because it would be an act of sheer folly. The Chancellor is so wise and so capable of seeing the points that hon. Member's submit that I have every confidence we shall receive from him a recognition of the serious nature of those that I have submitted in, I trust, not too long a speech.

5.49 p.m.

Major Sir HERBERT CAYZER: I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment which asks the Chancellor to exempt coastwise shipping as well as deep-sea shipping from the duty. It gives me all the more pleasure to support the Amendment because I have the authority of the Chamber of Commerce to say that they are whole-heartedly in favour of it. The Amendment consequently has the support of the deep-sea lines as well as the coastwise ones; in other words, it represents the view of the shipping industry. The deep-sea lines feel, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees his way to accept the Amendment, that will be just and equitable to the coastwise lines. As hon. Members know, the lines trading with foreign countries and overseas are exempt from this duty, and therefore this Amendment is primarily a coastwise Amendment, although it affects ships engaged in overseas trade to a less degree.
I cannot understand why this burden should be placed on coastwise shipping. Surely the shipping trade has heavy enough burders to carry already. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, recognises this, because he has seen fit to exempt ships engaged in overseas trade. Why should coastwise shipping bear this burden alone? The cost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be very trifling. The total oil consumed would probably be not more than 100,000 tons. The original estimate was 150,000 tons, but I understand that that included river traffic as well as coastwise. The yield in taxation would be, roughly, £100,000, and of that probably more than half would be obtained from the trade with Northern Ireland and other island traffic. The imposition of this duty will bring about many
anomalies, and it will bristle with difficulties. A great many misconceptions have already arisen in the shipping industry.
It is an anomaly that vessels going to the North of Ireland should be taxed on the fuel that they use, whereas those going to Southern Ireland get off without paying the tax. The country which has always remained loyal to this country and to the Empire is to be penalised, as against the South of Ireland, which will get the benefit. There is the question of repairs. I have a case before me which shows how the imposition of the duty will hit, not only ships trading overseas, but ships trading coastwise. Take the case of a ship which arrives from a foreign port at Southampton. She goes up to Newcastle for repairs, and she has to pay the full tax on the oil fuel that she burns in going there. The amount is probably anything from 100 to 150 tons on a large ship, which means that the oil consumed will cost up to £150 or more. If, instead of that ship going to Newcastle, she went to the Continent for her repairs, she would pay no duty for her fuel, and that factor might be just the turning point in the decision of some shipowners as to having their repairs done on the Continent, where they would escape the tax, rather than having them done in this country. That is a case which favours the foreigner.
Take the case of the foreign shipping companies that come over here and do coastal voyages, for instance, the Belgian and Dutch shallow coasters. They do a sort of triangular voyage. They come to London from the Continent, load up to one port on the coast and load out again to the Continent. They will probably escape the tax altogether, or, at the worst, they will only pay it on one of the three voyages. On the other hand, British coastal shipping generally runs from one port to another port on the coast. They often go one way in ballast, returning with cargo, or vice versa. It will be taxed on both of those runs, whether in ballast or in cargo. That shows a decided leaning in favour of the foreigner. Then there is the effect of the duty on British merchants and manufacturers, who are faced with keen competition from the Continent. A great many of the goods manufactured only show a very small
margin of profit. They are goods such as wireless sets and pianos, which are made in London, and are sent coastwise to the Northern ports. The boats taking them will have to pay the Heavy Oils Duty; similarly, goods made in the North or the Midlands, such as machinery, manufactured iron, ale, paints, newsprint and rubber goods, are sent coastwise to London and to ports in the South of England. If the Heavy Oils Duty has to be paid, there is no question but that it will cause an increase in the coastwise freight change of 2s. or 3s. per ton. Probably that will make all the difference between the manufacturers retaining the trade in this country, or Continental manufacturers capturing that trade, the Continental manufacturer having to pay no tax from Continental ports to British coast ports.
There is the question of storage of goods. London is a great store centre, where large quantities of goods are sold and stored. On the other hand on the Continent there are large warehouses for storing in places like Amsterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg, etc. At the present moment, and for a long time, those places have been making tremendous efforts to secure this traffic from this country. If this duty is to be enforced, goods that go by the coastwise lines which pay the duty will have to be charged at a higher rate but goods coming from the Continent will be taken by the foreign lines to the coast ports in this country free of tax, and they will get in at a cheaper rate. Then there is the question of engine trials; oil used for these will be taxed. It may cost a very big sum for large boats that will have to pay the heavy oils duty on the fuel oil which they use, and I do not believe that that will make for efficiency. It will cost a good deal of money, according to the size of the boat. Again, if a boat is laid up —it is very unprofitable for the shipowner to have to lay his ships up at all— a boat deteriorates very quickly when laid up. Now it will be still more costly because while the ship is laid up she will now have to pay for the oil that she uses in light and fire.
I have a letter here from a well-known shipping firm in the Atlantic Trade. They write to say that they are going to be hit very heavily in certain directions
by this duty. They say that very often a boat comes back from New York to Glasgow and they send her on a short coastal pleasure cruise of three to four days' duration from Glasgow without touching at any intermediate coastal port. Then the ship returns to Glasgow for another voyage across the Atlantic. That vessel will be liable to pay tax on the fuel she uses on that coastal voyage. Hon. Members may ask why does she clear coastwise, and not clear foreign? The answer is that it would cost nearly three times as much. It costs £.316 to clear foreign, and only £118 15s. to clear coastwise. If the additional duty on oil fuel is included, I am told that the addition will probably mean the cancellation of the pleasure cruises, with consequent unemployment of the crews.
A fact which many people do not seem to realise is that boats engaged in foreign overseas trade, in a great many cases, do not load outward from the port to which they come home. Boats from Calcutta, Africa, Australia and America, coming to London, may go round to Glasgow, Liverpool or Hull to load outwards. Here there is an anomaly. By rights, if such a vessel clears coastwise, she has to pay this duty on the oil that she consumes in going round to her outward loading port, but I believe that the Customs authorities, who have a good deal to do with the regulation of this matter, say that, if she takes a cask of whisky, or some other exciseable cargo, she will escape the tax on the oil fuel which she uses in going round. That is an absurd anomaly. On the other hand, a boat coming to London and going round to the Clyde to lay up because of the depression in the trade of the world, has to pay for the oil fuel that she uses in going round. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that he thought that in some of the speeches which had been made there was a certain amount of exaggeration, and that if he had listened to all the demands of the various industries for help by way of exemption from taxation, there would be no taxation at all. There is no doubt that he had to consider that aspect of the matter, but I claim that shipping, whether coastwise or engaged in overseas trade, is in a quite exceptional position. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that it is the
most depressed industry, not only in this country, but in the world. It receives absolutely no protection; it has never received any help from the Government; and yet it has to meet the fiercest foreign competition that any industry has to meet.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Subsidised competition.

Sir H. CAYZER: Yes. Nearly all the great Governments are subsidising their shipping in one form or another to the tune of millions of pounds—in some countries hundreds of millions of pounds. It can almost be said that British shipping is competing with a great many of the most important Governments in the world to-day. It has to compete with international conditions on a very unfair basis, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the World Economic Conference will remember the position as regards British shipping, and will be able to get some alleviation from the subsidised foreign competition that we have to meet to-day. It may be said that coastwise shipping is not international shipping, and that is true, but it has to compete with foreign shipping, and this tax is going to make that competition harder, because ships engaged in this trade, on all their voyages round the coast, will have to pay the tax, whereas in most cases the foreign shipping will be able entirely to avoid it. The margin between profit and loss in shipping to-day is so narrow that the smallest item has to be looked into. Indeed, in many cases it is not a question of profit or loss, but a question of a great loss or a lesser loss— whether it is cheaper to lay up a boat or trade at a loss. I have not tried to exaggerate, but have put plain facts, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer really to consider that it is not the time now to put an extra burden upon shipping, whether coastwise or oversea. I hope that he will be able to see his way to give favourable consideration to this Amendment.

6.5 p.m.

Major SIR ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I rise to support the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that every Member was inclined to speak for the trade interests of the constituency which he represented in the House, but, in speaking for the shipping industry, we
are speaking for an industry which is in the truest sense a great national industry. The Chancellor, it is true, represents a city in the very middle of England, but he, with his historic sense, and as a protagonist of the Imperial idea in politics, will be one of the first to agree that our great shipping lines are the arteries through which we draw the very lifeblood of the nation, the food of our people and the raw materials of our industries by means of which we have built up our great Empire. There is no country in the world where so great a proportion of the population lives around the coasts and ports as is the case here. In time of war we exist by our sea power. Hon. Members will have read the striking and eloquent testimony which was borne, in a letter to the "Times" by Lord Beatty on the 6th of this month, to the importance of our coastal shipping in connection with our national defence, and I hope that any hon. Member who feels inclined to support this tax will look up that letter before he goes into the Lobby in support of an impost of so serious a character. Our shipping is in a condition of lamentable and unprecedented depression at the present time, and our shipbuilding industry too, which will also be affected by this tax. Coastal shipping shares in this depression to the full. The Chancellor, in arguing this point about coastal shipping at an earlier stage, said that it was merely a form of competition with inland transport, but it is a form of competition which in its turn, as has been pointed out by the hon. Members who have preceded me, has to face the keenest competition from foreign countries, whereas our inland transport is a sheltered industry which has not to meet any competition of that character.
I should like to address to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question to which I attach the greatest importance, and I shall be grateful for an answer when he comes to reply. It is as to how the fishermen will be affected by this tax. They do, of course, get a rebate from the tax upon light oils, but it is not clear to me, and I would beg the Chancellor to be good enough to give me an answer on this point, that they will receive a rebate from this new tax on heavy oils. The prospects of the fishing
industry are bleak indeed at the present moment. The Russian embargo is taking away their great Russian market; the trebled duty on herrings in Germany makes it doubtful whether they will be able to sell in the German market; and I would implore the Chancellor to give to the Committee and to the fishermen themselves the assurance that they will not have to bear this additional impost. Many fishermen, of course, have the lighter kinds of engines, but a great many of the most up-to-date boats are fitted with Diesel engines burning heavy oil.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing yesterday with the general arguments urged against the tax said that there were three main considerations weighing in his mind in favour of the tax. One was that, in the case of foreign competition, some of our competitors abroad had to bear at any rate some measure of tax upon this oil, and in the case of Germany the tax upon oil is, he said, 10 times as heavy as anything that we have in this country. But one of my hon. Friends pointed out that Germany has, in a great and growing industry, the Diesel engine industry, been put out of the world market by that tax, and we have been enabled to take the place of Germany in that market. That shows how serious the effects of such a tax may be. His second consideration was that we must not leave out of account the fact that we have changed our fiscal system, and have given to the great bulk of our industries an amount of protection which they have not had before, and which may be set against the difficulty which they say they will now have to encounter because of the increased tax on their oil. But no protection is afforded, or can be afforded, to the shipping industry, so let us at least refrain from adding a burden to it by means of this impost.
The third reason which the Chancellor gave was that of competition with other industries in the home market. There are many parts of the country where, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Sandeman Allen), coastal shipping is the main, and sometimes the only, means of transport. One such part, and perhaps the largest part, is the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where only a few years ago the Government of which the Lord President of the Council
was the head, and in which the present Home Secretary was Secretary of State for Scotland, negotiated a contract with Messrs. MacBrayne, under which they have provided an ample service to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I am glad to have the opportunity of paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for the part which he played in carrying through that scheme. Messrs. MacBrayne have played their part splendidly. They have provided six magnificent new ships, and, when I went round the islands a year ago, I found them pulsing with new life through this improvement.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Are they fitted with Diesel engines?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: They are oil-burning vessels—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: And Diesel, too.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: It was a condition of the contract, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) reminds me, that four of the vessels should be completed, according to plans and specifications approved by the Minister, within a period of two years from the signature of the contract, and it is, to say the least, unfortunate that, the Government of this country—a different Government from the present, it is true—having signed that contract and having prevailed upon Messrs. MacBrayne to build these ships, should put upon them an impost which really has the effect, unintentioNaily no doubt, of varying the terms of the contract to the advantage of the Government as against the company. There are several other firms all over the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, smaller firms than Messrs. MacBrayne, who carry on vital services of this kind—also ferry services between the islands of Orkney and Shetland and in the Western Isles—with boats fitted with Diesel engines, and they will be seriously hit by this tax. I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he cannot at any rate give some consideration to the special case of these services in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
There is no question here of competition with any other form of transport. In large parts of the Highlands the people live scattered along the coast, in many cases 45 miles from a railway, and they are dependent almost entirely on the coastal shipping. It may be said that
these places are very small, but they have played a very important part in the life of the country. There is one that I hope to be visiting next week, a tiny village 40 miles from a railway, from which there went out a boy who was a member of the last Cabinet in Canada. In every village there are members of different families serving in most responsible positions all over this country and in all parts of the Empire. I have no hesitation in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the needs of these communities into his very serious consideration. I would ask him what he expects these shipping companies to do in the face of the depression, and what he hopes they will be able to do when trade revives and they will be faced with even keener foreign competition? Surely to cut their costs. What costs can they cut? None of us want them to cut wages. I am informed that this impost will add anything up to 75 per cent. to the cost of their fuel, which is their greatest cost next to wages. The 75 per cent. may be an exaggeration. I am not speaking with the great personal authority of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. But take it as 50 per cent. At a time when we want to see these shipping companies cutting their costs, we are surely not going to add 50 per cent. to their fuel costs. There is, indeed, little that we can do to help the industry. Let us, at any rate, refrain —the responsibility rests primarily upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but also upon every Member of the Committee— from adding new burdens.

6.18 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH McCONNELL: I rise to support the Amendment in general, and in particular to emphasise the serious effect that the tax will have on shipping between Great Britain and Ireland. Take, for instance, the shipping trade between Liverpool and Belfast, which may perhaps be designated the greatest coastal trade within these islands. Take, again, the trade between Liverpool and Dublin. Oil fuel steamers going to Dublin will get there free of tax while oil fuel steamers going to Belfast will be charged 45 per cent. tax on the fuel that they consume. We are satisfied that this was never the intention of the Government. I do not believe the Government intend to kill the fatted calf in
Ireland at the expense of the Northern Government. This is a matter that is vital to Northern Ireland. It is the only means of transport that we have between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter serious consideration because it is the life blood of our transport.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD; The Committee has listened to different points of view from different types of men. We have heard the case of the shipping interest well put by the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen), then we had a member of the Chamber of Sh: "No !"] I hope that is not the case, but that is how it appears to me. On the admission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, the tax is going to hit shipping. My own trade union notified me that our workers were thrown out on the streets at Ardrossan and Leith. They stopped the building of two ships at once. You could not have better evidence than that. Surely the Chancellor could find some other industry to tax. Right round the British Isles every estuary is packed with ships laid up, and 25 per cent. of the 230,000 engineers and shipbuilders whom I represent are unemployed. This tax is going to aggre-vate that situation.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) drew attention to the way the tax is going to affect the Outer Hebrides where they are up against it as far as transport is concerned. We raised that question time and time again until we worried the then Government into doing something. MacBraynes agreed to build certain ships, which have been of great service to the people living in those out of the way
places which are so far removed from the big industrial centres and from the world in general. They are further removed than they have ever been before because of the great developmnt that has taken place in road transport, which has brought the rest of Scotland more in contact with other places. This tax will lower their standard of life, because they will have to pay more for their transport, and I do not think the House would stand for anything that is going to aggrevate the conditions in which they are living. I am appealing for a race of men and women who have played no mean part in the making of the British Empire. I am appealing for the men who patrolled the North Sea or German Ocean during the War, the most onerous job that men had to undertake at that time. They are going to be hit in no uncertain fashion by the National Government, which was elected by these same folk If there is any section of Britain that is Conservative, it is the Highlands of Scotland. The Liberals who represent them are Tories. I have told the House that before.
It ill becomes the Chancellor of the Exchequer to treat this matter lightly and simply push it on one side, and I hope he will do nothing of the kind. Those who build and those who man the ships believe that this tax is going to be detrimental to their best interests. Think of the conditions of the shipping industry. Think of the shinyards. Think of the sacrifices that the shipbuilders have made. They have rationalised their industry. They have scrapped yards in my own constituency, not shipyards that were out of date. They were built within the last 20 years, are the most up-to-date yards in the world, equipped with the finest machinery in the world. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have all these things in his mind when he replies, because he is taking on himself a terrible responsibility. Further, we have the statement of the hon. Member for Antrim (Sir J. McConnell) that ships sailing from Liverpool to Dublin will enjoy a privilege which is denied to vessels going to Belfast. If the House stancis that, it will stand anything. I have no objection to this House and my fellow-countrymen extending the right hand of fellowship to the Irish Free State. I am all out for it. I wish we could do away with all the trouble which is on just now—the
embargoes against the Irish Free State and Russia. But that is not the question which is before us, though it is a phase of it.
This tax will be just as much an embargo as those which I have mentioned. It will have the same effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, by means of the tax, is to penalise the workers of Britain in the same way as they have been penalised by the embargoes on Russian and Irish Free State goods. He will hit the shipbuilding and the engineering industry, and it is my business here to do what I can to lodge a protest. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have regard to all these outstanding facts. On the Clyde we are building a cruiser, sloops, and destroyers for the Admiralty. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are lucky."] We are very lucky. I want to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the trial trips which are about to be run on the Clyde, the tax will operate on the oil required for fuel? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to allow a rebate, because when we contracted for those ships we did not know that there was to be this tax upon oil. Any profit likely to accrue from the building of those vessels will be wiped out as a result of the tax.

6.33 p.m.

Miss WARD: I want to emphasise one or two matters which have already been raised by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Sandeman Allen), and I Sincerely hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give very beneficent consideration to the points which I have to raise. In the first instance, I shall follow the last argument raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). Like the Clyde, we are building on Tyneside in my division the machinery for two destroyers and a cruiser, and I have been led to understand that the additional cost of the fuel which is to be used in trials will amount to something like £4,000. We have been told on several occasions that in presenting our case we must in no circumstances exaggerate our difficulties, and therefore to prove my statement I wish to mention further details of these figures. The whole of the oil fuel used for trials in a destroyer amounts to something like 430 tons, and the oil used for trials in connection with
a cruiser amounts to 3,250 tons. So that the effect of the proposed tax which has been introduced in the Finance Bill will run the company which has contracted to build these ships for the Admiralty into something considerably more than £4,000. I feel certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, at any rate, make some arrangements with the company because—and I again emphasise the point raised by my hon. Friend—when they contracted to build those ships they had no knowledge that the Chancellor was to impose this tax. Obviously, it would be very unfair for the company which have undertaken the work to be put to this extra expense which is not specified in the contracts. One may say that it is rather futile to rob Peter to pay Paul, but that is naturally a matter for settlement between the Admiralty and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I turn to my second point We still build a certain number of foreign vessels in this country, in spite of very fierce competition, and only those who are intimately connected with the shipbuilding trade have any idea of the immense amount of work which lies in front of a company which is endeavouring to obtain orders from foreign firms. At the present moment on the Tyne we are building one or two bAttleehips for Portugal. It is entirely open to Portugal to decide where it shall place its orders, but we know that we obtain these orders only by cutting down our specifications absolutely to rock bottom. If we have to add the cost of the tax it will go extraordinarily hard with our shipbuilders when they are endeavouring to obtain orders from foreign firms. I will go a step further and refer to ships which come to this country for repairs. Ship repairing is a very important industry in this country. I have recently received a communication from a very important marine engineering company in my division in which they say:
We were expecting a large British vessel coming to Wallsend, in a few weeks' time, for extensive repairs, which would give work to a large number of skilled workmen for over a month. This vessel burns fuel oil, and if the Customs authorities require payment of the proposed tax on the fuel oil consumed by the vessel while on the proposed trip from Liverpool to the River Tyne, and its return to Liverpool, then the owners will be obliged, on account of the extra cost of the fuel, to divert the vessel to the Continent for these extensive repairs.
One point about the case is that this vessel is not a coasting vessel.…
I think you will see the importance of this case, especially in view of your intimate knowledge of the condition of unemployment in the shipbuilding and engineering industries in your constituency.
I do not want on this occasion to go over all the points which have been raised in connection with shipping, and which have been so admirably put by so many of my hon. Friends, but I would respectfully remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a point which he made in his speech yesterday when replying generally to Members who were raising points in connection with the Debate which took place on the users of oil. He said:
Suppose their competition is competition with the foreigner, we must not leave out of account that we have changed our fiscal system and that we have given to the great bulk of our industries an amount of Protection which they have not had before and which may be set against this difficulty."—-OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1933; col 1201, Vol. 278.]
When we introduced the Import Duties Bill for the protection of our industries, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues were very careful to insert a Clause to exclude from duty any material which was used in connection with shipbuilding and ship repairing works. The Clause was included because it was generally felt, and he actually had the support of Members from shipbuilding areas, that it would be absolutely disastrous to run the risk under any consideration of raising costs in connection with the shipbuilding and ship repairing works of this country. If that argument was reasonable when the Import Duties Bill was introduced, it is equally reasonable to-day. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the position of these vast and important industries. Speaking generally, I appreciate the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in trying to encourage coal, and as a Member of a constituency which is partly coal, and partly shipbuilding and repairing, I find myself in an extraordinarily awkward position. But I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that by voting with the Government yesterday, and opposing them today, I am settling the difficulties of the average politician, I hope, very successfully, and I beg of him favourably to
consider the claims put forward in the Amendment.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Lady, in the extremely interesting and valuable speech to which we have just listened, has stated her difficulties in having the two sides of the case both represented in her constituency. I happen to be in a different difficulty, because up to the present I have heard only one side of the case, and a large number of hon. Members who take the other view have reserved their fire until this moment. At any rate, I think that I am in a position to know the worst, and I should like to make a few observations to the Committee upon the considerations which have been put to me this afternoon. Yesterday, when we were debating the more general aspects of the question of this duty, I indicated that, in my view, there was something to be said on both sides, and that it was a case in which one had to weigh up advantages and disadvantages and try to arrive at a conclusion as to which was the most important in the general interests of the country. These general considerations, which I put before the Committee yesterday, apply in the present situation. The particular case we are considering is not exempt from the considerations that I put to the Committee yesterday, but what we have to consider now is whether there is a sufficient difference in the case of coastwise shipping and the allied instances that have been discussed, to enable me to say that there is a somewhat different set of considerations.
We are discussing, under the general head of ships and the Oil Duty, in the first place coastwise shipping, but the Amendments on the Order Paper which are embraced in our general discussion cover a wider field than that. There is the question of fishing boats, on which the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) expressed the anxiety of his constituents. I am surprised that one who takes so deep a personal interest in the affairs of his constituents should have failed to acquaint himself with the circumstances, which I should think must be already known to every one of them, because not only have they been told over the broadcast that the fishing industry will obtain a rebate on this duty, but the
Scottish Office, of which the right hon. and gallant Member was so distinguished an ornament, have asked for and received a large supply of pamphlets giving full particulars of this concession to the fishing industry. I am told that they have been distributed in the neighbourhood of Caithness, and no doubt when he visits that picturesque place he will find them in the hands of his constituents. Whatever decision the Committee comes to about the duty in connection with coastwise or other shipping, the fishermen are secure.
We are asked to deal with vessels owned by and operated by harbour authorities, but it seems to me that vessels operated by harbour authorities can hardly come under the same arguments that have been used in connection with coastwise shipping, because they are not in competition with foreigners. Their position is far more analogous to that of inland navigation than of coastwise shipping, and I cannot conceive that any attempt would be made, and I do not think any attempt has been made, to put the case for harbour vessels as requiring special treatment. Now I come to the question of coastwise shipping. I think this matter was raised at an earlier stage on one of the Resolutions, and a plea was made that coastwise shipping should be put in a special position. I said the first thing that naturally occurred to one, that coastwise shipping was a form of transport which would appear to be most immediately in competition with inland transport, but, of course, it is impossible, as I have said on a previous occasion, when you are thinking of a new duty to give notice to the whole country that you are thinking of it and that you would like to know how it would affect this or that concern or industry. If you did that, obviously advantage would be taken of your inquiries to forestall the effect of your duty.
I do not profess that I could possibly beforehand know exactly all the details and all the ways in which coastwise shipping may be affected by the imposition of this duty, and I must say, after listening to the speeches this afternoon, that there is something to be said for the view that coastwise ships are exposed in a special way to foreign competition. The speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ports-
mouth, South (Sir H. Cayzer), in which be gave a number of detailed particulars where the tax upon fuel oil on the coastwise vessels would affect them detrimentally as compared with their foreign competitors, particularly impressed me. I was also impressed by the plea that was made to me by the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness that this was the case of an industry which had no protection, and that it ought to have some form of compensation. That at once touched me. When it is a case of protection, I cannot altogether turn a deaf ear to it. It is perfectly true that shipping of all kinds is doing very badly It is one of the industries which has been very prosperous and very valuable to the country in the past, but it has fallen on evil times and met with a great deal of competition for a very much diminished amount of trade.
If it be true, as I have some reason to think it is true, that the cost of fuel is, apart from the cost of wages, the most substantial item in the running costs of a vessel burning oil, then it is making it a bit difficult for them if one is going to add still further to that heavy item in their costs. On the whole, I think some case has been made out for coastwise shipping; I have considered whether I should make some difference in the level of the duty, whether I should offer to make it half the rate of duty in the ease of coastwise shipping—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—but I do not think it is a case where there is much advantage in haggling about half the duty or none at all. If anything is done, one might as well go the whole hog, and the conclusion that I have come to is that I shall be prepared to exempt coastwise shipping from the operation of the duty. Let me make it quite clear that this concession will apply to fuel oil only. Nobody, I think, has asked for anything else, but I want to make it quite clear.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Diesel oil?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Diesel oil is fuel oil. I mean, not lubricating oil. I make no distinction between coastwise shipping and the pilot cutters which are the subject of another Amendment on the Order Paper. These, too, I propose to include in the exemption. Then comes the question of trial trips referred to by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs
(Mr. Kirkwood). They will be exempt also. There will be no duty on fuel oil for trial trips. There is no Amendment on the Order Paper which will exactly carry out the undertaking that I have given to the Committee, and I think I shall have to get an Amendment drafted which I can introduce on the Report stage. I hope that hon. Members will take it that the Amendment will do all the things that I have suggested. It will cover the whole field, and I trust that it will give satisfaction. I think the group of Amendments has been fully covered, and I hope that in view of the statement that I have made we shall be able to proceed further with the Bill.

Mr. HOROBIN: Does the exemption cover tugs and lighterage in the great rivers and the Port of London?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not inland.

Mr. HO ROBIN: The tugs and lighterage service which go between Tilbury and the Port of London?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite sure, but, as the hon. Member has drawn my attention to it, I will look into the matter.

Sir BASIL PETO: What will be the position at the moment with regard to the charging of duty on coastwise trips that are made between now and the Report stage?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, the duty falls to be paid as soon as the duty was imposed. The exemption really is retrospective and takes effect from 26th April. My hon. Friend is right in raising the point, and my answer is that I am afraid we must go on charging the duty for the moment, but we will see whether we can find some means by which we can cease charging it. In any case, any duty that is charged will be repaid.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the people in the Highlands of Scotland, who would have been hit very sorely by the tax.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I should like to say how very deeply one appreciates the attitude that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken. So far as my Amendment is concerned, I should like to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that this Section shall not apply to oils for use as fuel in any plant installed and in use prior to the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 275.

Division No. 196.]
AYES,
16.58 p.m.


Banfield, John William
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rea, Walter Russell


Briant, Frank
Janner, Barnett
Rothschild, James A. de


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
John, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cowan, D. M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dobbie, William
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Edwardt, Charles
Leckie, J. A.
Thorne, William James


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lunn, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.
White, Henry Graham


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maxton, James
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James



Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Parkinson, John Allen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Harris, Sir Percy
Pickering, Ernest H.
Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald.


Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Aske, Sir Robert William
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell


Albery, Irving James
Astor, Ma). Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Balley, Erie Alfred George
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Belt, Sir Alfred L.


Apsley, Lord
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. sir Henry B.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hepworth, Joseph
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Pybus, Percy John


Blinded, James
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Boulton, W. W.
Hoars, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Rankin, Robert


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hllisorough)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybrldge)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hore-Selisha, Leslie
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hornby, Frank
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Horobin, Ian M.
Remer, John R.


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Burnett, John George
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U,


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hume, Sir George Hoowood
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hunter, Capt. M, J. (Brigg)
Robinson, John Roland


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Carver, Major William H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rosbotnam, Sir Samuel


Caetlereagh, Viscount
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ross, Ronald D.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Kimball, Lawrence
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J. A.(Birm.,W)
Law, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Lass-Jones, John
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Clarke, Frank
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salt, Edward W.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Lewis, Oswald
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Liddall, Walter S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Conant, R. J. E.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cook, Thomas A.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cooke, Douglas
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Scone, Lord


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootle)
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)


Crookshank, Capt, H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lymington, Viscount
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O, (Ayr)
Slater, John


Davison, Sir William Henry
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Denman, Hon. R D.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Denville, Alfred
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dins, C.)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A, F.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dickie, John P.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smithers, Waldron


Donner, P. W.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Duckworth, George A. V.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Dunglass, Lord
Magnay, Thomas
Soper, Richard


Eastwood, John Francis
Maitland, Adam
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T, E.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Spens, William Patrick


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Martin, Thomas B.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stevenson, James


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. G. (Blackpool)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stones, James


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mills. Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Mitchell, Harold p.(Br'tf'd A Chisw'k)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Tate, Mavis Constance


Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thompson, Luke


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morgan, Robert H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fraser, Captain Ian
Morrie, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Train, John


Fremantie, Sir Francis
Morrison, William Shepherd
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Munro, Patrick
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Nail, Sir Joseph
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nation, Brigadier-General J J, H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Goff, Sir Park
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Goldie, Noel B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
North, Edward T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Graves, Marjorie
O'Connor, Terence James
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Grimston, R. V.
Ormiston, Thomas
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wise, Alfred R.


Hales, Harold K.
Patrick, Colin M.
Withers, Sir John James


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pearson, William G.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Hanley, Dennis A.
Penny, Sir George
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wragg, Herbert


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,BIIst'n)



Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Pike, Cecil F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Potter, John
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
PowNail, Sir Assheton
Captain Austin Hudson.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.11 p.m.

Mr. ALBERY: I want to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for considering the case of the pilot cutters. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also consider the case of the tugs, which are constantly coming into heavy competition with foreigners. One other thing I hope he will consider on the Report stage is whether there is any possibility of finding a way to make some concession to those industries which have recently installed Diesel plant at great expense, for the definite reason that they desire to be up to date. They might be given a concession during a period of time. In my own constituency there is a case which I wish to bring before the Committee, as an example. It is that of a firm making wood pulp in competition with Scandinavia. They were only enabled to do this by installing Diesel plant for power purposes. The competition from Scandinavia which they face utilises electricity. If they have to pay this tax upon fuel, it will be impossible for them to continue this business which, I believe, is new in the district, being only comparatively recently set up, and which has at present difficulty in carrying on against severe foreign competition. I hope before the Report stage the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider making some kind of concession to those who, from a desire to bring their plant up to date, have recently installed machinery of that kind.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: I wish to express the gratitude of one coal mining area to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the courage he has shown in resisting the pressure put upon him by those interested in oil. I believe it is the most constructive effort in tariffs which has been made, and I rejoice that it is the National Government which has done the most that can be done to prevent further decay in the coal mining areas.

CLAUSE 7.—(Increase of Excise Duty on British sparkling wines.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.14.p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: With regard to sparkling wine, there is one firm which adopts a practice of making these wines in a manner similar in every respect to that in which they are made in France-and other countries. Grapes are used by this firm in this country and, as a consequence of their being used, there is naturally, a better type of wine produced than that made from the imported sort of stuff called "must." Encouragement should be given to any firm which makes-a real effort in this country to compete successfully with the foreign manufacturer of wine and, where grapes are used, some concession ought to be given so that there may be encouragement to the effort to build up the business of manufacturing an article equal in every respect to wines imported from abroad. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter his most serious consideration. By fresh grapes being used much better results are achieved and, as a result, we get some of the very best wine manufactured in any part of the world.

7.15.p.m.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I do not know whether I caught accurately the remarks of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee), but I understood him to say that there was only one place in this country, and that was in his constituency, where these wines are made on the same process as they are made in France. I cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged, for to my great surprise I found, when this tax was first mooted, that one of the chief places in this country where this sparkling wine was manufactured was within the Colne Valley. I want to put the point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the basis upon which he is preposing to tax this excellent product of my constituency is entirely wrong. I cannot understand exactly why he is proposing to tax it on the basis that it can possibly compete with Empire wines.
I am informed that this product can never hope to compete with sparkling wines imported from the Empire or from other countries, and never intends to compete with them. The competition of this wine is solely with cider. It is a growing trade, and, if I am right—I have the strongest authoritative information
to the effect—this tax will kill completely the trade in sparkling wines in this country, with the result that the Chancellor will not even get the present tax of 1s. 6d., let alone any increase which he may hope to get from the tax now proposed. My suggestion is he has misconceived the basis of the tax, and that if he proposes to tax this product, a most harmless product in its effect on the heads of those who make it, even less harmful than cider, it should be on a basis comparable with cider, and not with other sparkling wines. I hope he will consider that suggestion before Report stage and make some substantial reduction, in the amount of the tax, so as to put this sparkling wine more on a level with cider, with which I am informed it competes.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a little difficult to avoid mentioning names in a discussion of this kind when hon. Members are pushing the virtues of the wines made in their political constituency, but may I inform the hon. Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) that the sparkling wines which I have in mind, the origin of which I will not name, and which are likely to produce a revenue to the Exchequer, are not wines which can be said to compete with cider. The sparkling wine which I have in mind is sold at 6s. 6d. per bottle, and any wine sold at 6s. 6d. a bottle cannot be said to compete with cider. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) has asked me to distinguish between wine made from grapes and wine made from mush. I have not to look at the origin of the wine, but as it appears as a sparkling wine which competes with sparkling wines imported from the Continent. I have to safeguard the revenue I obtain from sparkling wines coming from the Continent, and I cannot make an exception in favour of a particular kind of wine simply on the ground that it is made from imported grapes instead of imported mush. I do not apprehend what it is that the hon. Member desires to encourage, whether it is the production of wines from imported grapes rather than imported mush; but if he will give me some particulars about the matter I shall be happy to look into it.

Mr. McENTEE: I shall be glad to give the right hon. Gentleman the information.

Mr. MALLALIEU: I was not addressing my remarks to any eider which may be sold at 6s. 6d. per bottle. The sparkling wine of which I was thinking is an excellent wine sold at 9d. per quarter bottle, and which, therefore, competes only with cider. In regard to that type of wine I hope he will consider the point.

Clauses 8 (Power of Treasury to vary silk duties,) 9 (Repayment of Customs duty where goods returned by importer) and 10 (Valuation of goods for purpose of all ad valorem duties) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Reduction of certain duties unders. 3 of 15 16. Geo. 5. c. 36.)

7.24 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 9, line 14, to leave out from the beginning to the second word "the" in line 19.
I desire to ask your guidance as to this and the next Amendment,"which is to leave out Sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Clause. I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the two Amendments together. They deal with two distinct points, and perhaps they ought to be taken separately.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): This Clause, which comes into the Finance Bill consequent upon a Financial Resolution in Ways and Means, authorises a reduction in certain duties which were embodied in an agreement between His Majesty's Government and the German Reich. The Amendments really deal with two different points. The first Amendment is to omit the words which are almost a preamble to the Clause, and I think raises the terms of the Treaty between His Majesty's Government and the German Reich. If hon. Members desire a discussion on that Treaty it should be made on the first Amendment. The second Amendment really raises the point as to whether the House should alter the duties or whether it lies within the power of the Treasury to do so. We can take a discussion on the merits on
this Amendment, and on the second a discussion on the question of machinery.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: If the words of the preamble are left out we shall be bringing about a reduction in the rates of duty, and, accordingly, when the German Agreement expires, it will not be automatically the duty of the Government to restore these duties to their old level. Two separate points are raised in leaving out the preamble. It is not a question as to whether the German Treaty is desirable, but what will happen when the agreement comes to an end.

Mr. GRENFELL: The object of this Clause is to reduce the duties now in operation which came into existence under the Finance Act of 1925; and, in order that they may be reduced, some reason must be given. The Government say that in consequence of a Treaty made with the German Reich an alteration is to be made in the Finance Bill. In the Finance Act of 1925 uniform rates of duty were laid down to apply to a variety of manufactured articles, ranging from motor cars and accessories to all kinds of musical instruments, gramophones and so on. That flat rate of 33| per cent has been in force Since 1925 on all imported commodities coming under these categories, but in consequence of the agreement with Germany which was approved a short-time ago, a lower scale of duties were authorised; the Germans were given a form of preference in our markets. The general duties were lowered in consequence of that agreement, and the rates of duties will vary from 20 to 25 per cent. Instead of a uniform rate of 33⅓ per cent. there will be lower rates on certain kinds of articles. This is an innovation, a precedent, which we should do well to avoid, or at least to examine carefully. Here is an agreement made with Germany which is intended to be followed up by agreements with other countries, for the purpose of achieving a control over imports and encouraging our own exports, according to a plan which is in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade but which has not yet been revealed to the House.
These agreements, while they may have advantages, bring serious complications to our fiscal system, and on this occasion it has been found necessary to make
special provision in the Finance Act for the agreement made with Germany, without any declaration that this will be the only occasion on which special provision of this kind may have to be made. It may not be possible to reduce these duties without a declaration in the Finance Bill, but even so we do not think it is necessary to have these words in the Clause. We think it could be stated in the form we propose, and that the Clause should commence with the words:
The duties of Customs charged under Section 3.
down to the end of the first Sub-section. We want some explanation as to why this is necessary in the Finance Bill, and whether next year there will be another such qualifying condition. We want to know whether our import duties are to be subject not to the financial or trade requirements of our own country, but conditional upon agreements which may be made by the President of the Board of Trade, with other foreign Governments. We have put our objections to the Clause and have made a request for information, and we shall be grateful to have that information.

7.30 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The hon. Gentleman has moved the first Amendment and has couched his speech practically in the form of a request for information. It would perhaps be convenient that I should give an explanation at the earliest possible moment. The words referred to in the Amendment were described by you, Mr. Deputy Chairman, as something in the nature of a preamble. The Committee, of course, appreciates that there is also a very considerable limitation implied, because the object of the Clause is to enable effect to be given to a particular trade agreement. I do not think it necessary to discuss the whole principle on which the Government are entering trade agreements with other countries. I prefer to give to the hon. Gentleman an explanation of the Government's reason for the introduction of these words and the effect of the Amendment if carried. The Subsection of which these words form a part confirms a Financial Resolution passed by the House of Commons on 4th May, reducing as from 8th May certain duties charged on the articles specified in the
Fourth Schedule under Section 3 of the Finance Act of 1926. The reason for that Financial Resolution was to enable the trade agreement recently reached with Germany to be implemented.
That trade agreement is itself subject to a power of termination. It may be ended at three months' notice, and if the agreement were denounced and these Amendments were carried, the Government would find their powers restricted; there would be no power to put back the duties. It is desirable to have power to deal with these duties and to restore them to the former level if the agreement were determined, or if, as we shall see on the next Amendment, it was desired to withdraw the most-favourednation clause from a particular country. The words are necessary, first, because they implement the Financial Resolution, and, secondly, because if the words were cut out fresh legislation would be required to restore the duties to their former level. With that explanation I hope that the hon. Member will see that the Amendment is not necessary.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I rise, not to follow the point raised by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, but to take advantage of your Ruling, Captain Bourne, in order to protest briefly once more against the genera] character of this trade agreement. I am not proposing to enter again upon the detailed criticism of the terms of the agreement. I have done so on previous occasions, and I hope it may be possible for the House to have a better opportunity than we have had so far for discussion of this and all the other agreements which have been entered into Since then. I do realise, however, that at this moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be naturally anxious to get through the Finance Bill and to have time to prepare himself for the arduous labours that lie in front of him at the World Economic Conference. Therefore, without entering upon the details of this agreement at all, or attempting to make any comparison between the possible advantages secured by it and the possible and indeed probable sacrifices which it may involve, I shall detain the Committee for only a minute or two while I make certain observations of a quite general character on the agreement.
The agreement seems to me to have been based on somewhat loose thinking, and to show evidence in many of its features of unnecessary hurry, if not scamped work. It seems to me that the failure to consult any of the industries who axe to lose a measure of protection under the agreement, was unnecessary and was in a sense a scamping of the work which the Board of Trade ought to have done before going as far as they have gone. Again, when it comes to the question of undue haste, was it really necessary to rush through agreements on the eve of the World Conference, out of which may emerge an entirely different situation with regard to the mostfavoured-nation Clause? We may be giving now on a large scale what it may, after the World Conference, not be necessary to give at all on such a scale. Again, after the conference we may know somewhat better than now what the future currency position is to be, and that position may profoundly affect both the extent of the concessions we are receiving under this agreement and the concessions that we are giving.
Lastly, I submit that whether a general agreement with Germany is desirable or not, an agreement on this specific and minor issue was not necessary. We are securing some portion of what the President of the Board of Trade a year ago regarded as our undoubted right, and taking into consideration the whole relative position of German trade in this country and British trade in Germany, it seems to me that the question was not a case for an agreement but for the effective application of economic pressure. It was not candy but the stout stick that was required to gain us this very limited concession. As to the thinking that underlies this agreement, naturally we have always assumed that one of the advantages of a tariff system would be the opportunities that it would give us for bargaining. How those opportunities were exercised however, would depend upon a good many factors. They would depend, for one thing, an the relative trade position of the two countries concerned, which might in certain cases make it desirable to reduce our tariffs and in other cases make it simpler and more effective to indicate that we would raise our tariffs unless the necessary concessions were made.
Further, behind any question of bargaining must always lie the Major object for which a tariff system is instituted, namely, the security of our industry. The whole criticism that we have always made against Free Trade is that it leaves our whole position insecure, leaves our standard of work and wages insecure. That does not appear to have been the view with which the President of the Board of Trade entered upon these negotiations.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Clause 11 deals strictly with the agreement between this country and Germany. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is now anticipating the Debate that will arise on Clause 12. That is the Clause which will give His Majesty's Government power to make or alter tariffs in any commercial agreement. Discussion of the general question will be more appropriate on Clause 12.

Mr. AMERY: I had not intended to enter upon the general question. I am dealing with the particular defence which the President of the Board of Trade made on the German Agreement, namely, that he regarded the duties imposed as "bargaining material", to be taken off for the purpose of securing equivalent concessions; and in connection with that agreement I ventured to say at the time, and I repeat now, that if that is the point of view from which this agreement was framed, then the Advisory Committee has no real meaning or function at all and should never have been instituted. Under these conditions it is a fraud and a very dangerous fraud calculated to mislead the whole industry of the country. In connection with one of the items in the agreement the President of the Board of Trade said that any pledge which the Advisory Committee had made was something which they made only as "speaking for themselves." That is the most serious issue which this particular agreement has raised, and it is vital that to it the Government should give some sort of answer.
Are the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the pledges which they gave things of no weight or authority with the Government? Are they nothing more than the academic opinions of the individuals who made them, or do they in some measure affect the action
of the Government? If we could have some assurance that in the main those pledges and recommendations will stand good, and that it is only after very serious consideration, and after consultation with the Advisory Committee and the industries concerned, that they will in future be modified, then it will be possible for industry to have some renewed confidence in the tariff policy of the Government. If we can get no further assurance than that which the President of the Board of Trade gave us in connection with this agreement, I can only say that its terms are calculated to cause the gravest anxiety and most serious discouragement to British industry.

7.44 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I want to impress upon the Government that they should not be unduly influenced by the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). I consider this Clause and Clause 12 to be two of the bright spots in this otherwise drab Finance Bill. They offer a message of hope to the traders of the country, who are looking for markets for their exports; to shipowners, who see their ships laid up; and to the miners and the coal industry, who have been feeling the full brunt of the world trade depression. If the Government listen to the ingenious and persuasive arguments of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook I am afraid that the energies of the President of the Board of Trade will be tremendously handicapped. If he is to negotiate with foreign countries he must do so with a free hand and with confidence that the House of Commons will implement the agreements.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Baronet's argument is now being directed more towards Clause 12 than towards the Clause under discussion.

Sir P. HARRIS: I appreciate the fact that this Clause is limited to the German Agreement. I think the President of the Board of Trade deserves the gratitude of this Committee for his courage in carrying through these negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman knew the kind of House of Commons he had to face but if various interests in the country such as the jewellery interest and the gramophone interest are to be allowed to say to him:
"Because you have given some concession you are to be thrown over," then the labours of the right hon. Gentleman in future will not be effective. The only way to get a bargain from a foreign country is to give some concession. The right hon. Gentleman has to some extent justified his position in the Cabinet. I have been a constant critic and I am only too glad now to pay him my tribute for this contribution even though it is a small contibution to the restoration of world trade and economic liberty.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The history of this matter goes back to a day which was of some importance in my life because it happened to be my birthday, in 1924, when the current German commercial treaty was entered into.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: The anniversary of your birthday.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Under that agreement we extended to Germany most-favoured nation terms, but there was also a clause, the exact phrasing of which I cannot quote, to the effect that we should not discriminate against Germany either in substance or in form. That is to say, we were not to select articles for protection which came mainly from Germany. It happened that at that time the McKenna Duties were not in operation, having been suspended by the Labour Government in the Finance Act of 1924, but an Election had taken place and a Conservative Government had come into office and, having regard to their attitude towards the McKenna Duties, it was in the minds of most people that those duties were likely to be restored. Accordingly the agreement was negotiated in these circumstances— though probably nobody said anything about it—that there was the anticipation that the McKenna Duties which we are now reducing, or some of them, would be restored. Therefore, I do not think the Germans could have alleged that the restoration of the McKenna Duties were to be regarded as in any sense discrimination against them merely because a considerable proportion of the goods effected normally came from Germany.
Then the Safeguarding of Industries White Paper was published in January, 1925. Applications were received by the Board of Trade, and in the following
Budget there was, I think, a duty on lace, and in the following December there were duties on leather gloves and three or four other commodities all of which were drawn in considerable quantities from Germany. The Germans, I think, protested that it was our Safeguarding of Industries policy which represented a measure of discrimination against them. When we began to protest against the German coal quota, and when they said, "We want you to look into your duty discrimination against us, not discrimination merely because you have put on duties but discrimination because you have put duties on products which are of particular interest to us"—I cannot understand why, at that time, when these negotiations were taken up, the Government should have been in the slightest degree impressed by that argument, because it had then lost its validity. When arbitration was pressed for in respect of quotas, and when the Germans said that we must arbitrate on the whole matter, their real ground of complaint, if they ever had any, had passed away as a result of the definite change in the policy of this country.
It seems to me that our Government entered into these negotiations not from the point of view of strength, as they could quite properly have done, but from the point of view of weakness. The President of the Board of Trade, in a vigorous speech, said if it was thought, that anybody else could make a better bargain than he had made, then somebody else could be got to do it. I thought he was taking a rather unwise attitude. It was not a question of whether he had bargained well or not, but of whether or not he had equipped himself with the proper tools before he started to bargain. I always thought that that was the weakness of the position. Actually if we had liberated ourselves from the German commercial agreement or certainly the most-favoured-nation clause in it—and some of us have expressed the view that we ought to have done so not only in respect of Germany but in respect of many other countries—our position would have been one of overwhelming strength because we buy far more German goods than Germany buys from us.
The cards were all in our hands, and we could have dealt them out, without any of the improper dealing Sometimes
indulged in by those who play cards with great skill. We had everything in our hands if we had chosen to equip ourselves properly, and the grievance felt by many hon. Members is that the Government entered into these negotiations before we were free to use all the economic power which was in our possession. It is deplorable that industries, built up under the protection of these duties, are now to he exposed to unnecessary competition in return for a totally inadequate reward. I did not take any part in the previous discussion on this subject other than the silent part of voting in opposition to the proposals, but I feel distressed that we have made such a poor ineffective start with the new bargaining power which we have obtained of a protective policy, and I wish to add my protest to the others which have been made.

7.54 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I wish to register my protest against the timing of this German Agreement. The Committee will notice that the articles included in the Schedule referred to in this Clause are all articles which were protected under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. They had a protection of 33⅓ per cent. Now by this German Agreement those duties are reduced in varying degrees to from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. We have never had any evidence that the duties were too high to effect their purpose. On the contrary, the musical instrument industry, for example, had been slowly establishing itself here under the 33⅓ per cent. duty. What security has that industry or any other safeguarded industry for the future? On each occasion when Safeguarding Duties were imposed they were imposed for a period of five years. Twice they were allowed to lapse under Socialist Governments. At that time those engaged in the industries had a prima facie right to assume that they would have a run of five years from the commencement of the imposition or reimposi-tion of the duties. Now they do not know whether the duties will run even for five minutes.
This sudden reduction under the German Agreement was a bolt from the blue to these industries. Not one of them was consulted and my first point is that this new protection policy which
the Government have undertaken coupled with this system of treaty-making without notice to the industries concerned, instead of giving additional security has rendered the position of all industries in the country—because nobody knows what industry will next be the subject of an agreement of this kind—infinitely more insecure than it was before. My second point has already been touched upon by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). When it was first indicated that the Government intended using the tariff as a negotiating instrument and making these agreements, it was assumed by everyone with any knowledge of treaty-making and tariffs, that the first thing the Government would do if they were going to make specific agreements with countries like Germany, would be to get rid of the most-favoured-nation clause. How could they negotiate with a specific country on specific lines if every concession which they gave was open to every country which had that clause in its treaty? In the case of the clock industry, for instance, in return for what most of us think is a very inadequate concession by Germany in regard to coal imports, we have given away our whole case as regards the development of the industry in this country. We have given it away to Switzerland, from whom we have not even commenced to ask for anything in return. When we come to ask something from Switzerland, they will say if they are honest,"Thank you, you have already given us everything in exchange for nothing in regard to the matter in which we are specially interested. You have reduced the clock and watch duties to such an extent that we can now ride roughshod over your market."
There is another point. We set up the Import Duties Advisory Committee. We adopted the general principle of a minimum tariff largely as a revenue tariff, and up to a few months ago there was no talk of doing anything definite in the way of making these new agreements. Therefore, all alterations were made in relation to the 10 per cert. duty. I have already given the illustration of the Safeguarding Duties. The duties imposed after the inquiries held before the Import Duties Advisory Committee were all at a rate which had no relation to bargains with and concessions from
foreign countries Therefore, the policy of the Government is not only misconceived but it has no real method. The result is, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) very well put it, the President of the Board of Trade, with nothing in his hands to bargain with, has had to make these agreements with Germany and other countries.
Can anybody wonder that our trades and industries are horrified at the result? Not only have they lost any vestige of security which they had, but the direct promises made as to the conditions under which the duties were imposed are proved to be valueless so far as the Import Duties Advisory Committee is concerned. Therefore, I felt, as this was the first Clause in the Bill having reference to the German Treaty, that this was the appropriate occasion on which to register a protest against this haphazard procedure, in what, I will frankly admit to the Opposition or to anybody else, is a vital matter to the trade and industry of the country. I say that we ought to have had a definite plan, when we got a new Government with a definite viewpoint, and that the whole thing should have been worked out first, instead of which we have had a procedure which is not correct in timing and of which consequently, the effect it is producing on industry is quite other than would be the effect produced by any rational tariff policy.

8.1 p.m.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: I should like to know what were the exact instructions to the Import Duties Advisory Committee when they were fixing these tariffs. I understand that they were told to go through a trade very carefully, and to find out what was the tariff with which it could compete with Germany, or whoever it might be, if its markets were to be secured. The Advisory Committee have all my sympathy. I should have hated to be one of them, and then, having taken all the trouble to find out exactly what was the correct tariff to put on, without being consulted in any way, to have a "bolt from the blue" which entirely changed that tariff.
I have been talking to people interested in steel in Sheffield, who, Since they saw that tariffs were coming, have taken a great deal of trouble to improve their
production. They were telling me to-day that this extra cut in the tariff will make all the difference to them, and they wonder now whether they will make a profit. These are the people for whom I am sorry, these people who have got their chance of doing well cut away from them. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. (Mr. Amery) that there has been far too much haste about making these agreements. These treaties could have been made at any time whatever. The Government might have waited, at any rate, until after we had seen whether anything was going to come out of the World Economic Conference in June. They ought to have waited until they had got the mostfavoured-nation clause put into a proper position.
Whenever the other countries thought we were going to put on a tariff, they at once shoved up their tariffs, and surely the wise thing to have done would have been to go to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and say, "We are going to make bargains in the near future. Be very careful that we have something with which to bargain." It may be that, being a Scotsman, I like a good bargain, but I should never have given these big businesses the very minimum tariff that would safeguard them. It all seems to have been done for the sake of coal, but, as the Minister knows very well, while I am all for coal, if you stop making a ton of steel, you have done away with a great many tons of coal, and all that we shall get from Germany to help the coal miners is nothing like what we should get from our own people at home if we had the steel and shipbuilding trades going well. I hope there will be no more of these treaties made until we have far more stable conditions, until we know where we are and have some idea of how things are going to move.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. HALES: I wish to associate myself with those who have protested against this German Agreement. Having special opportunities of hEarlng what has happened in the trades affected, I wish to tell the Committee that a feeling almost of consternation and distress has been created by this "bolt from the blue," which has taken away from them the possibilities of development and reduced them to a position which is worse
than that in which they thought themselves secure. It has been contended, of course, by the President of the Board of Trade that the duties were only small, but against that, surely, if the duty is satisfactory to Germany, no matter how little the reduction may be, Germany will be able to export her goods to this country, for otherwise the treaty would be useless. Before the recent reduction in the duty on imported clocks, Germany was in possession of 65 per cent. of the trade in clocks imported into England. The reduction will therefore certainly put her in a position to entirely control the British market, which is a very great hardship to the British Clock manufacturers who have expended very considerable sums in plant for this comparatively new industry.
Further, surely there is some reason to think that when a duty has been put on some time must be given in which it can operate. There must be some security of tenure. What would be thought if a council were to pass the plans for the building of a theatre, and then, when you had put on the roof and it was completed, they refused to issue a licence? That would be similar to what we are facing to-day. I think the zeal of the President of the Board of Trade has outrun his discretion, and I would like to enter my protest and to express the view that this is an agreement for which he cannot take much credit and which certainly needs very grave revision.

8.7 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade needs, I am sure, no defence at my hands. He has himself spoken in this House on the German Agreement three times, in the Debates of the 1st and the 4th May, and has given the facts. I need not repeat the arguments that he has used, but I think the Committee has been led a little astray by some of the speeches made in connection with Clause 11. May I point out to the Committee that many references have been made to the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and to an alleged feeling of insecurity? Whether or not any such feeling exists, it is not germane to anything that is dealt with in Clause 11, because this
Clause does not deal with any duty ever recommended by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I do not want to make an excessive point of this, but this Clause deals with duties that have never come under the purview of that Committee at all.
My purpose in rising was to deal with questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). He asked what weight is to be given to a recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. That is a matter of such importance that I could not allow this Debate to come to a finish without some word from the Government Bench in answer to that question, and I want to assure him as fully and amply as is possible that any recommendation from the Advisory Committee is regarded as having great weight and is taken very fully and actively into consideration by His Majesty's Government. We shall debate on a subsequent Amendment whether the Import Duties Advisory Committee are to have the power to advise, but the decision must rest with the Government. I should like it to be clearly understood, however, that full weight is given to any recommendation by that Committee and that only some Major consideration of policy would induce the Government to take a contrary view.

Mr. AMERY: But is the weight such that industry can afford to put Capttal into an undertaking on the strength of a recommendation of the Im port Duties Advisory Committee?

Dr. BURGIN: I cannot,of course, give that assurance, but the information which reaches me is very different from that to which we have been treated this evening. The general attitude of industry towards the Import Duties Advisory Committee is one of unfailing gratitude, very handsomely expressed.

8.11 p.m.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Nobody has reflected upon the Import Duties Advisory Committee this evening or upon the way in which they have discharged their duties. What my right hon. Friend and others have been anxious to secure was that, when that Advisory Committee advised a duty, and a duty was imposed, it should not be lightly abandoned, and that when the Com-
mittee, in advising a duty, advised that they did not intend to recommend an alteration for five years, attention should be paid to that request, if the Government exercised their power of revision.

8.12 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for making the position so clear. I had replied perhaps too cryptically. I am quite aware of the fact that no reflection has been made on the Import Duties Advisory Committee, but I can only again give, and give consciously, the assurance that no recommendation of the Committee would under any circumstances be lightly set aside. The matters which we are discussing with regard to the German Agreement have been dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade himself, and I do not propose to go over them again, but in dealing with the general matter, I give the unqualified assurance that recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee are not under any circumstances lightly departed from.

Mr. PIKE: The hon. Member says that the recommendations of the committee are not lightly turned aside, but can he say if, after the revision of those recommendations, the recommendations which may be revised go to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for their further consideration?

Sir S. CRIPPS: On a point of Order. Are we discussing on this Amendment the attitude of the Import Duties Advisory Committee? I thought that that came on Clause 12.

The CHAIRMAN: That is so. Unfortunately, I was not here at the beginning of the Debate, but I understand that certain references have been made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, in connection with the German Agreement, under which certain duties recommended by the committee were altered. Be that as it may, I do not want this to develop into a Debate on the position of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, because, as the hon. Member speaking from the Treasury Bench has just said, that will come more appropriately on the next Clause.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I understood from the hon. Gentleman that no duty under Clause 11 could possibly go to the Import Duties Advisory Committee—that it does not deal with such duties.

Dr. BURGIN: If I may reply to the question put to me, if the Import Duties Advisory Committee made a recommendation and the Government, for reasons of policy, desired to make some different suggestion, the Import Duties Advisory Committee would undoubtedly be informed and have an opportunity of submitting observations, but the ultimate decision lies with the Government and with the Government only. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) said, "What is the use of negotiating with a country with the most-favoured-nation clause?" He suggested that before making an agreement with Germany, it would have been sufficient to put an end to our treaty with that country in order to be unfettered from the most-favoured-nation obligation. The hon. Member, of course, knows that there are 42 treaties, and it is not the treaty with Germany that would have to be abandoned, but the whole of the other 41 treaties, if one wanted to use the most-favoured nation argument in a different form.

Sir B. PETO: That is not exactly what I meant. I assumed that you would clear the decks before you went into action.

Dr. BURGIN: If one is to embark on the policy of giving notice in respect of 42 treaties, it would be a long time before any trade agreement came before this House, and I cannot believe that, on consideration, that is desired either by industry or by any section of political opinion.

Mr. AMERY: Would it be possible to raise this question of the most-favoured-nations clause at the World Economic Conference and to get some general settlement among the nations?

Dr. BURGIN: No doubt the whole policy of the most-favoured-nation clause can be discussed at the Conference, but that would not prevent Great Britain being bound by the 42 agreements which are at present in force, the terms of which would have to be preserved in giving notice. There will be other opportunities of discussing the most-favoured-nation clause on other Amendments this evening.

8.15 p.m.

Sir J. HASLAM: I only rise to emphasise to the Committee that some of
us who have been supporters of tariffs all our lives differ from those who criticise the Government on this point and heartily support the German Agreement. I should not have occupied the time of the Committee but for the fact that every Member who has spoken, except the Minister, has condemned the agreement. [An HON. MEMBER:"NO!"] Well, criticised the proceedings attached to the agreement, except, of course, one particular Free Trade Member whom we always expect to be different from the party to which I have the honour to belong. Some of us heartily approve the actions of the Government. Surely the Government must have the power at all times either to accept or to reject the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. That power must rest with the executive Government, subject, of course, to the final approval of the House. If we are not to have any bargaining power in regard to international agreements, surely the attraction of tariffs to a good many people would fade away. I should have thought that the last person who would have complained about the short-term policy of the Advisory Committee would be the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) who pressed the matter of fabric gloves a week or so ago. I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order if I mention the question of the selective tariffs that were agreed on at the Ottawa Conference, and which we hope will be extended at the World Conference. We look upon the German Agreement as a preliminary in that direction. I want to add my testimony to that of others who have been lifelong members of the party who support this agreement and think that the President of the Board of Trade has done the right thing in the policy which he has adopted.

Amendment negatived.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Clause.
The Chairman told us when we moved the previous Amendment that he would expect us to approach the question on a different line on this Amendment. I endeavoured to keep to the subject of the Amendment and did not allow myself the luxury of wandering over so wide a field as other Members. The hon.
Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), with a pardonable and laudable desire to enliven the proceedings, referred to his pleasure and satisfaction at this concession to his life-long views from his old colleague who has for the moment departed from the true faith and is responsible for the tariff system of this country. The hon. Member can derive some satisfaction from the first part of the Clause, and, so far as we have gone, we on this side of the Committee have found no fault, because there a reduction in duties is contemplated. In the present Amendment we express our apprehensions because, having made arrangements in conformity with the German Agreement to reduce the rate of duty from a uniform standard of 33⅓ per cent. to varying rates of 25 per cent. and upwards, the Clause now gives power, without the consent of Parliament, to restore these rates to a higher figure. That would indeed be a sorry circumstance and would reduce the satisfaction felt by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green at the action of his old colleague the President of the Board of Trade in contributing to the gaiety of London and the country in general by not only providing lower tariffs against Germany, but making a contribution of world tariffs as well.
He has specified that musical instruments, for example, are to come into this country cheaper so that those of us who have musical proclivities may amuse ourselves and those who accept our sociability with the aid of musical instruments of all kinds. The one thing that has not been stressed in this discussion so far is that, while we impose a tariff of 33⅓ per cent., which is now to be reduced in consequence of the German Trade Agreement, the reduction is not to apply only to German goods, but to goods produced in Switzerland. It is to apply to Swiss clocks as well as German clocks, and to Italian musical instruments as well as to German musical instruments. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green and the Liberal party, who find so much joy and satisfaction in this, with the aid of cheaper Italian mandolines and guitars, and the auxiliary aid of the sparkling wines which have been referred to to-day, will be able to have a night out in celebration of their great triumph.
Our objection to the Clause is a constitutional one. We wish to safeguard the House and the country against what appears to be the power to tamper and to juggle with tariffs. The House has already decided in favour of permitting a reduction of tariffs from 33⅓ per cent. to lower rates on certain specified articles. Now we are coming to the possibility of a reversal of that procedure, and it is likely that action will be taken without consultation with this House, and indeed without an appeal to the Advisory Committee or any body properly constituted to examine the merits of any possible change. It is laid down that that change shall be upwards and that the duty shall be restored to 33⅓ per cent. by order of the Treasury or the Board of Trade. I do not know the intricacies of the most-favoured-nation clause, but I should imagine that in this Clause 11 as it stands there are possibilities of a great deal of confusion and apprehension arising not only in the minds of those in this country who would like to know 12 months in advance what the rate of duty on these particular imports is likely to be, but also in the minds of traders in foreign countries who supply us with them and who do not know when it may occur to the Treasury or the Board of Trade to terminate the new arrangement and restore the duty to 33⅓ per cent. We have never been very much enamoured of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Time and time again we have said that it is not a perfect organisation for the assessment of Customs duties in the interest of so-called protection, but here there is no provision for calling in even the Advisory Committee. It is subject only to the caprice of the Treasury—nobody knows exactly who the Treasury are, though the Treasury is something of which every Department goes in fear and trembling—or the Board of Trade, acting in circumstances known only to them and outside of the control of this House.
We do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary requires the latter part of this Clause for the purposes which he has so clearly explained to us. Surely he can do what he wants to do for 12 months without creating the perplexities and disturbing conditions which may arise under Sub-sections 2, 3, 4 and 5. He has told us that there are 41 nations with whom
we have most-favoured-nation clause agreements, and we do not know to what extent an alteration in these duties, without publicity or previous notice, may create difficulties for us with those nations. The Clause is one which it is difficult to follow and to understand in its details, and there are many points which we would like to have explained, but I will not pursue those points further because some things about which I now feel apprehension may be more clear to me after the Parliamentary Secretary has made his speech. We find, however, in Sub-section (3), this statement:
(3) For the purpose of an order made under this section which is expressed to apply to any particular countries, the Board of Trade may make regulations prescribing, either generally or in relation to articles of any particular description, the conditions which must be fulfilled in order to prove that articles have been manufactured in any of those countries, or partly in one and partly in another of those countries, and the Commissioners may in any case require an importer to furnish, in such form as they may prescribe, proof that the conditions so prescribed by the Board have been fulfilled, and if such proof is not furnished to the Commissioners' satisfaction, the articles shall be deemed not to be articles so manufactured.
That sounds very involved. It may be that it is a necessary provision, but I would like to know how it works. If all this inquiry is to take place in regard to articles which come under this very specific and clear instruction we apprehend that the difficulties of the Government may be considerably enhanced. Further, we would like to know the Government's policy. Are they really working for a lowering of the tariff walls, are they hoping for a reduction in tariffs, or are they waiting and balancing their opinions day by day watching the possibilities of successful negotiations with this country and with that and not certain whether they want the tariff to remain at 33⅓ per cent. or at the lowest possible figure which may result from negotiations? We shall welcome a statement by the Minister, and we hope he will be able, if not to agree to the deletion of these parts of the Clause, to give us an assurance that our apprehensions are exaggerated.

8.33 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The hon. Member who moved this Amendment
and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) approached this question of tariffs from a rather different angle from that taken by us on these benches. They Halled with joy the reduction of tariffs on certain commodities which has taken place under the German Agreement as being something good in itself. We, however, look on tariffs as a necessity for the country at the present time, and the reductions made are the minimum reductions necessary to secure certain particular benefits under this agreement. Therefore, if we do not continue to get those benefits, it is only right that we should have the power to revert to the existing rates of duty, and, if the Government were to accept this Amendment, which they certainly cannot do, it would take away the power given under Subsection (2) to restore the duties, or any of them, to their former level. This agreement with Germany, which is the one under discussion, can be terminated at three months' notice. If it were found that we were not getting what we had expected under that agreement it could be denounced, and if this Amendment were accepted we should then require new legislation to restore the duties to their old level. That is a position which the Government cannot accept; they must have the power to act quickly in such an event, and so they ask for this Clause, which enables the duties to be restored by a Treasury Order.
There is another reason why we ask for this power, and it has a relation to our policy of negotiating with foreign countries. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has explained, it is not our policy to proceed with a general abrogation of our treaties with foreign countries in which we have the most-favoured-nation clause—that applies to 42 countries at the present time—but the President of the Board of Trade has very clearly stated that we could not continue to afford unconditional most-favoured-nation treatment to the countries which give unfavourable treatment to our goods, if, when we negotiate with them, they do not give us satisfaction. We must therefore take power to act, and to act decisively, in regard to the reinstatement of the duties, if the occasion arises that commercial relations with a country break down.

Sir S. CRIPPS: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman how long it takes to denounce these treaties?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: [will come to that. The hon. and learned Gentleman has noticed that we are bound by certain treaties at the present time. That is provided for in the proviso at the bottom of page 9 of the Bill, which reads:
Provided that no order shall be made under this Section unless the I reasury are satisfied that it can be made without contravention of any agreement regarding commercial relations which is for the time being binding on His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
A period of notice would, of course, be necessary before any discriminatory duties could be applied to a particular country. Some agreements require three months, some six months, some a year and some longer, but the Majority of them require six months or more. The application of duties that are non-discriminatory would not require the abrogation of an agreement under the mostfavoured-nation clause. We might want to reimpose a duty, and we wish to have power to do that without undue delay. I can assure the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) that these powers will not be exercised in a spirit of caprice, but when, in the judgment and knowledge of the Government, any such change of duty is essential, and we ask for those powers confident that we must have them in order to carry out our trade policy with foreign countries.

8.37 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his explanation. May I ask him one or two questions, in order to get the position clear? A great many people in the country do not quite appreciate what the most-favoured-nation clause, and these duties under the German Agreement, are. As I understand the matter, every remission given in respect of these duties to Germany, automatically applies to every nation with whom we have a most-favoured-nation treaty. Those countries are automatically entitled to get those remissions, so long as the most-favoured-nation clause exists, and the remissions given will be cumulative for all the nations. That is to say, if some agreement is made to-morrow with another nation, Germany will, in the same way, get the benefit of those re-
missions, and each remission made with each succeeding nation will be spread over the whole area of all the nations.
People are anxious to know whether that is the permanent policy of the Government with regard to the most-favoured-nation treaty clauses, and whether, when the Government are negotiating individual treaties, they are going into the negotiations on the basis that whatever they negotiate with a particular country will automatically apply to all the other countries who come within the most-favoured-nation clause. The hon. Gentleman will see that it is very important that people should understand one way or the other. It is generally thought at present that a treaty, for example with Germany, merely affects German trade, and that a reduction of 20 per cent, will be a reduction of 20 per cent., for instance, on clocks coming only from Germany. Of course, it will mean a 20 per cent, reduction for all clocks. If that system is to be followed out, it will have the very desirable effect of making a general reduction on the whole of the tariff of the country, instead of in respect only of the particular agreement that is being made. We may hope after a time, as a result of successive agreements with different countries, to get a general lowering of the tariff wall, rather than a specific lowering of the tariff wall as against specific countries.

8.40 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will reply to the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. It is true, generally, that any concession given in a tariff agreement would be shared automatically by the countries with which we have most-favoured-nation rights in their treaties with this country, but, when the Government are not satisfied, in endeavouring to make agreements with countries which receive benefits from other trade agreements that that country is not prepared to make concessions to help our export trade, most-favourednation treatment will not be unconditioNaily continued. The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right in his idea that there will be a widening of trade, but that will only take place if we receive fair treatment. That is our policy in regard to the most-favoured-nation clause.

Amendment negatived.

8.42 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 10, line 7, to leave out from the word "description" to the word "been" in line 8, and to insert instead thereof the words:
that articles which fulfil such conditions as may be specified in the regulations shall be treated as having.
This is a Government Amendment to insert certain words which are necessary, in the opinion of the draftsmen, when one comes to lay down conditions as to proof of origin of manufacture. The Committee will appreciate that, by the two sub-sections in Clause 11 with which we have already dealt, we have contemplated that goods manufactured in a particular country might conceivably be dealt with on a different footing from goods manufactured in another country. It is requisite therefore to have very carefully prescribed in the Act of Parliament a method of determining whether or not goods have been manufactured in a particular country.
Sub-section (3) of Clause 11, as printed in the Finance Bill, is concentrated upon the method of proof, rather than upon the conditions themselves. This Amendment merely adds that, in addition to prescribing conditions for proof of manufacture, the Board of Trade shall be the authority to lay down what conditions have to be fulfilled in order that the regulations may be regarded as having been complied with. Origin of manufacture is a difficult matter to decide. "Empire content" will spring to the minds of hon. Members at once. The Board of Trade desire not merely to be satisfied in a matter of proof, which is a mere matter of evidence, but they want to be given the power themselves to stipulate the conditions which shall exist, before goods said to be described as from a particular country can be so described, for the purposes of this Clause. The Amendment might be regarded substantially as a drafting one. Its object is intended to be covered by the printed words of the Clause, but it is put forward in order to make the object clearer.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman, in moving this Amendment, has failed the Committee in one respect. I thought that he took it for granted that every Member of the Committee had in
mind the case of Canada, whence articles coming to this country, as from within the Empire, are, by surreptitious methods, actually manufactured in the United States and only assembled in Canada. The hon. Gentleman spoke about regulations to be made by the Board of Trade to ensure that an article coming to this country from Canada shall have beenactually manufactured, and not merely assembled, in that country. I am thinking, for purposes of illustration, of typewriters, lenses, photographic instruments, and so forth, and I think it would be well if the hon. Gentleman or his colleague could give us some idea of how regulations can be drafted at all to meet cases of that kind. I have an impression that, in spite of all the machinery that could be set up against commodities travelling over those frontiers, no scheme can ever be devised that will prevent them from coming into this country, via Canada, from the United States of America. It would be well, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman would give us one example of how he can formulate regulations to make every Canadian dealer so honest that, when hed eclares that a typewriter has actually been manufactured in Canada, the Board of Trade in this country will be absolutely satisfied, when the article arrives here, that every piece of it has been actually made in Canada. Let me pursue the point a little further. Are we to be told in these regulations, or are the Canadians to be told, that not only must the machine have been assembled in Canada, but it must have been manufactured in Canada—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. Does not this relate to Clause 13?

Mr. DAVIES: I was only taking a point which the hon. Gentleman himself had introduced. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is not the Chairman of this Committee. Otherwise, he would not allow me to speak at all—I suppose as one Welshman to another, as it were. This is a very important point. Is it to be laid down in these regulations that not only is the machine to be assembled in Canada, but manufactured in Canada? Is the steel, the ironwork, the metal work from which the machine is actually made in the first instance, to be produced in Canada; or will it be
possible for the metal work to be produced in the United States of America, sent into Canada, and then turned into a machine ready to be received in this country under the regulations which the hon. Gentleman is now proposing? I wish he would take, for the enlightenment of the Committee, a specific article, and tell the Committee how these regulations are going to meet the case of that article when it comes through the Customs into this country.

8.50 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Gentleman has taken a rather unfortunate question, the question of the honesty of the Canadian manufacturer. I hope that the Committee will not be led aside by discussions of that sort. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who raised the point of Order that this matter might come under Clause 13, was, of course, recollecting that Clause 13 deals with Imperial Preference, while Sub-section (3) of Clause 11 deals with foreign countries. I have assumed that the hon. Gentleman was asking for an example, and that the country was geographically of little consequence.

Mr. DAVIES: I always understood that the United States of America was a foreign country, and not within the British Empire. It was once.

Dr. BURGIN: The greater part of the hon. Gentleman's speech dealt with Canada, and not with the United States of America. However, I want to answer fairly the point that has been put. Practice makes perfect. The hon. Gentleman asks, how can one ever, by Regulations, be sure that one is going to achieve the object aimed at? That is a very good matter for Debate, but it is not the point of this Amendment. In connection, for instance, with the Russian embargo, questions of the meaning of the term "manufacture" and "country of origin" are questions of daily concern to the Board of Trade, and a good deal of experience is being gained as to what type of matter it is necessary to investigate in seeking to show that goods emanate from a country, not in the physical sense of having been shipped or despatched from that country, which is a matter of easy proof, but whether they have been manufactured in that country with a view to making that country the
source or origin of the goods. What percentage of raw material, what percentage of labour, what percentage of overhead charges, is sufficient to give the article in question a geographical origin? In the trade and industry of the world today, almost every article if composite. A log felled in Russia may have its branches trimmed off in one place, its bark in another; it may be measured in a third place, and cut into planks in a fourth. What is the country of origin of the sawn plank when it reaches the Surrey Commercial Docks?

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Where the tree grew.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member says, "Where the tree grew," but he will find that the growing of trees is not a process of manufacture. I take the point about which I was asked. I was asked to trace an article, and say what we were going to do by regulation. I do not mind what article is taken, but the type of regulation which the Board of Trade is going to lay down will be as to the minimum conditions to localise the finished article reaching this country with the country of origin in regard to which the regulations are made. The whole of this Amendment will only come into operation at all if one is seeking to discriminate against a particular country. Otherwise it can never be used. It will only be used when one is going to say that the most-favoured-nation provisions have been withdrawn from country A, so that goods coming from country A are to be dealt with on a separate footing. What is the minimum requirement which goods must possess in order to be labelled geographically as of manufacture and origin in country A? That is the point to which the regulations will be directed.

Mr. DAVIES: Will not all this cumbersome process require the presence of a representative of the Board of Trade on the spot where the article is manufactured, in order to secure all that the regulations are implemented?

Dr. BURGIN: If that were required, the regulation would say so. The hon. Gentleman is, I think, making a mountain out of a molehill. It is not at all difficult, certainly not for the Board of Trade, to make regulations about anything. The Board of Trade is confronted
with the problem: How are we to tell that particular goods are manufactured in a particular country? This Clause says that the Board of Trade shall have the power themselves to answer that conundrum, that they shall make regulations in such form as stipulates minimum requirements to give the geographical label to the goods. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in a great many countries regulations of this kind are in constant use and practice. I myself have handled a great many of them, but not Since I have been a Minister. The power is really an enabling power, which I think this Committee will desire to give, and perhaps they may now be able to see their way to let us have it.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I do not think it is generally realised in the Committee that the items in the Fourth Schedule with which we are dealing are items that do not enter this country duty free when they come from Empire countries. They are all goods which are subjected to import duties, when they come from Empire countries, at two-thirds of the rate applied when they come from foreign countries. Accordingly, in the case of pianos, for example, we reduced the duty on foreign pianos from 33$ to 20 per cent, and pianos coming from Canada, if any happened to come from there, from 22|y Per cent, to whatever is two-thirds of 20 per cent. Having regard to this Amendment, the matter is a little more complicated than the Parliamentary Secretary has realised, because it is one thing if an article is made in part in one foreign country and in part in another when we are discriminating against one country and not the other, but, if you have the case of an article coming from Canada made largely from American parts, and if it happened, for the sake of example, that we were free to treat American goods differently from German goods and we restored the duty on American goods to the McKenna Bate of 33$ per cent, and, in addition, some of these goods, having been partly manufactured in the United States came through Canada, there would be the question of the labour content which arises in Clause 13. But if, on the other hand, they were goods that had been manufactured in a foreign country with which we still have most-favoured-
nation relations and were in part manufactured in an Empire country, a new rate of duty might arise. I want to know precisely how goods of Empire origin are going to be treated, having regard to the fact that these are not goods of Empire origin which are entitled to enter the country duty free, but would enter at a preferential rate.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: The Government will be faced with conundrums of this kind so long as they have a tariff policy. How are the Government to know that an article which is produced in the Empire, where preferential consideration has to be given, is not produced by foreign Capttal? It is admitted by most people that Capttal, as such, is international, although we talk of the Bank of England and the joint stock banks. Consequently articles which have come from any of the Dominions in consequence of the Ottawa Agreements may have been financed by the Capttal of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think any part of this Clause deals with articles produced by foreign Capttal.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Surely the Board of Trade will be able by regulations to know exactly where the articles are produced, by whom, and whether they have been produced by foreign Capttal.

The CHAIRMAN: No, not foreign Capttal. That does not come into the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Power to repeal or reduce duties under 22 & 23 Geo. 5. c. 8 having regard to commercial agreements.)

8.59 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 33, to leave out the words "the general ad valorem duty or."
This is designed to limit the bargaining power of Governments—not of this Government, but of any Government. The proposal is that, in any trade agreement that we may enter into, the Government will be debarred from abolishing the
basic duty of 10 per cent.; in other words, that their negotiating power will be limited to the duties in excess of the 10 per cent. The conception under the Import Duties Act of the general ad valorem duty was to provide, in the first place, a revenue duty. That phrase has been used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the President of the Board of Trade—certainly by one and I think by both. Their conception of the 10 per cent, duty is that it is primarily for the purpose of revenue and that it is incidentally mildly protective. I am inclined to think, if that is the conception, that that Tevel of protection ought to be left outside any question of commercial agreement with foreign countries. There may well be instances where in our own interest we ought to place articles on the Free List. In a number of up to now minor cases goods which were origiNaily dutiable at 10 per cent, have been transferred to the Free List on the very proper ground that investigation shows that those goods were either not produced in this country at all or not produced adequately, and, in addition, that there was no effective duty-free supply from Empire sources.
No Protectionist desires to have a duty which may be nomiNaily Protectionist in character on an article where there is no duty-free competition and where, quite obviously, the price must be increased by more or less the amount of the duty. That we understand. But, under this power which the Government will have if we pass this Clause, they will be entitled to agree to remit the very moderate duty of 10 per cent., not because the article is unavailable from United Kingdom or Empire sources, but on the grounds that, for some reason, the foreign nation with which we are negotiating thinks it should enter the country duty free. My view has always been that, so far as these negotiations are concerned, we should have a general tariff applied to all the foreign world in general except those who treat us badly. In their case there would be a higher tariff—that, of course, is contemplated under the Import Duties Act—but in addition there should be an intermediate tariff which any nation could obtain the advantage of on proper terms. If we are going in some cases to whittle away all of it, I tee no reason why we should whittle away the whole
of the protection that we give to our people, because the only cases in which the general ad valorem duty will continue in operation will be those where the Import Duties Advisory Committee see no reason to recommend its abolition; in other words-, where they think the genera] circumstances of the production of the article are such that there is no case for its transfer to the Free List. That we should ever bargain away that moderate amount of duty represented by 10 per cent, seems to me an absurdity, and I should like all the world to know that, when our Ministers or our diplomatic representatives enter into trading negotiations with foreign countries, the 10 per cent, in any event is sacrosanct.
My view with regard to the commercial negotiations up to now is that we have not played from strength. We have played all the time from weakness. I am a little distrustful of the general attitude of the Government to these foreign negotiations. It seems to me that, instead of telling the other fellow that if he does not behave himself, he will find against him a tariff very much higher than he now has, we have gone into negotiations with countries with which we have a very large adverse balance and we have given them concessions in order to obtain bare justice. I think we ought to say to those people, "Unless you put your tariff on a more moderate basis than it has been in the past we, who have the whip hand because our purchases from you are much greater than yours from us, will impose on you duties so prohibitive that you will suffer and, as a consequence, you will be reasonable and offer us fair terms. I fear that the Government have not been negotiating in this rather more brutal manner if I may use the term. The duty of the British Government is to look after Britain. The duty of foreign Governments is to look after their own countries. I have the greatest respect for countries which state their needs plainly. The Government which I desire to support do not take this line. They take the line of undue weakness in these negotiations. I want to protect them against themselves. I want to lock the safe. I want to padlock the 10 per cent, duty so that they cannot touch it. I very much hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I know that I have not encouraged them
to accept the Amendment because I have not been too kind to them in this matter. Nevertheless, in the national interest, and in the interest of getting the world back to a greater degree of sanity in the matter of tariffs, I hope they will accept the Amendment. I do not believe in universal Free Trade and never have done, but I believe in universal sanity in the matter of tariffs, and if we are to get it we must not be too willing for the sake of minor advantages to sacrifice our own tariffs.
None of our manufacturers and agriculturists should, by means of any commercial agreement, be deprived of the rights of the general ad valorem duty. I am not certain what the interpretation of the Amendment would be in respect of meat. As far as the agreements with Denmark and with the Argentine are concerned, we have undertaken to give them duty free admission of meat. In one sense the general ad valorem duty would apply to meat but for the fact that at the moment it is on the Free List, but it can be transferred from the Free List at any moment on the basis of a recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It is conceivable, though I am not certain, that if my Amendment were passed it would prevent the Government from giving an undertaking to continue on the Free List those things which, for reasons of policy, are on the Free List. We know that meat is not on the Free List on any grounds of merit, because when we debated the issue in the House of Commons a year ago, we were told that the reason it ought to be on the Free List was that the Government were terrified that unless meat went on to the Free List the public would revolt, or words to that effect. When, nine months later, we again pleaded that meat should be taken off the Free List, we were told that it was no use putting a duty upon meat, because the only way to raise prices was by means of quota. I have never been able to reconcile those two entirely opposite arguments. I am not clear on the strict legal interpretation whether, if the Amendment were carried, the undertakings which the Government have given, so far as they are not yet ratified —and I think that none of them are ratified—to preserve meat on the Free List would be invalidated. I do not want the country to be deprived of any of its
reasonable free bargaining powers. I wish the power at all times to be safeguarded, and that we should at least be entitled to preserve the duty of 10 per cent, ad valorem on any goods coming from foreign countries if we think it is in our own interests to do so.

9.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The purpose of the Amendment, as the hon. Gentleman who moved it has fairly said, is to padlock the 10 per cent. duty. I regret that the Government cannot accept an Amendment which would so limit them in their power. In point of fact, as I think the hon. Gentleman himself has admitted, in a number of cases the 10 per cent, duty refers to articles which are really not controversial to any extent, and yet, none the less, are important in bargaining with a foreign country. In the agreements recently concluded, with examples such as calcium carbide, certain grades of ferro-silicon and charcoal smelted iron and steel, felspar, rock crystal quartz and cyanamide, and several other types of commodities, there is no real controversy as regards the removal of the 10 per cent duty. None the less, they were articles in which these particular countries were very much interested in securing a free entry. Therefore, as the 10 per cent, tariff covers a large number of articles of that type, the Government would not have the necessary freedom—the freedom they must have—if they accepted the Amendment which padlocks the whole 10 per cent. rate. Another reason why I cannot accept the Amendment1 is that the advantage of the method of adjusting duties proposed in this clause is that it enables duties to be reimposed quickly, if for any reason an agreement is determined. It is advisable to have power to enable the duty to be quickly reimposed, and not only that, to revert to what I said earlier in relation to our most-favoured nation treatment, we cannot continue indefinitely to give most-favoured-nation treatment to those countries which do not afford favourable treatment to our goods. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Amendment and to give the Government the Clause which appears in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, in page 10, line 45, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no additional duty shall thereby be reduced by more than one-third.
This Amendment raises a different point from that which was raised just now. It is confined to those cases where there is an additional duty; in other words, a duty recommended by the Advisory Committee. The object is to deal with the very difficult position in which the Advisory Committee and industry generally have been left by the treaties which have been recently negotiated. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) pointed out in a very forcible speech when these matters were discussed before, if the I recommendations of the Advisory Committee are to be modified as the result of trade agreements, there ought to be some margin and elasticity for such modifications without destroying, at any rate, the minimum of essential security which, in the opinion of the Advisory Committee, industry should receive. In the Amendment which I am putting forward for the favourable consideration of the Government, the scope for the reduction of the duty on an article which enjoys an additional duty would be confined to a reduction of one-third of the additional duty-In other words, if the Advisory Committee had recommended an additional duty of 15 per cent, so that the article had a total duty of 25 per cent, upon it, negotiation downward would be confined to reducing the duty to a 20 per cent. duty. There would be no objection to the Government negotiating by threats to raise the duty upwards, but so far as reduction of a recommendation of the Advisory Committee is concerned, it would in the case of a 25 per cent, duty not exceed a reduction to 20 per cent. The knowledge that that power would be exercised by the Government would undoubtedly leave the Advisory Committee in case of doubt to give a slight preference for a somewhat higher duty, knowing that if that higher duty were reduced by one-third in the course of negotiations, that then the eventual duty, if it were perhaps a little on the low side, would still not be so low as seriously to imperil the situation of the industry affected.
The Amendment would, therefore, give a margin ample enough for effective negotiation and yet at the same time not so wide as to put the position of the industry in complete uncertainty. Industry would, at any rate, know that if it got a recommendation of 25 per cent, from the Advisory Committee that in the opinion of the Advisory Committee that 25 per cent, was an ample protection, and that it could at a pinch, in case of some big issue of national interest involving a reduction of duty, be cut down to 20 per cent. This is an Amendment which I should like very earnestly to press upon the favourable consideration of the Government. I do not lay stress on the actual fraction of one-third; the Government might prefer one-fourth. Nor do I stress the particular wording of the Amendment. I do lay great stress upon the principle that a recommendation of the Advisory Committee should not be scaled down beyond a certain point. Then industry would know, more or less, where it stood. Coupled with the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade as to the weight the Government attaches to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, the knowledge that these recommendations while they have a certain amount of elasticity cannot be recklessly brushed aside and invalidated, would mean a great deal to industry at the present time. It would help the Government's position with industry in the country very substantially if they could see their way to accept the Amendment.

9.18 p.m.

Lieut-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON: I think we all agree that tariffs are essentially valuable as a bargaining counter, and it is also necessary to remember that we must leave a minimum of protection for manufacturers at home in any bargains we make; but, what is even more important, we should not in the various treaties which we undertake produce a continual variation and fluctuation in the amount of the general level of protection given to manufacturers. I represent one of the largest firms of ball bEarlng manufacturers in this country, The ball bEarlng industry is a very re markable instance of the way that a firm or an industry can be subjected to continual variation in their protection. That particular industry for many years had a 33J per cent, protection for ball bEarlngs
used by the motor car industry. The rest of the ball bEarlng production had no protection, but after the election that particular section of the industry was given a 10 per cent, protection. It was then pointed out to the Board of Trads and the Import Duties Advisory Committee that, from an administrative point of view, it was most undesirable that you should have two different rates of import duty on an identical article, varying only as to the eventual destination which the article found. It was pointed out that it was extremely difficult to prove the destination, and that in no case were articles which had only paid the lower rate of duty destined to the motor car manufacturers in this country. The Import Duties Advisory Committee agreed with that contention and raised the whole scale of duties to 33⅓ per cent. Now, hardly a year afterwards, we again, as a result of the Swedish Treaty, find half the industry again lowered in their protection from 33⅓per cent, to 20 per cent.
It is almost impossible for manufacturers in this country to carry on their business if the Government are going continually to chop and change their Protective policy. The hon. Member who represents the Department of Overseas Trade is, or was, a business man, and I am convInced that if he had been in his business subjected to this kind of administrative treatment he would have been the very first person to come to the Board of Trade and ask them what they thought they were doing. But at the present time he happens to be in a somewhat different position, and possibly he has forgotten his former attitude on the subject. I do not pretend for a moment that it is not necessary to vary duties because of Trade Treaties. It is in the general interests of the country that it should be done, but we must have some minimum level of protection, and manufacturers must be given to understand that whatever Trade Treaties may be made in the future, they can always count upon a certain level of protection and make their contracts and carry on their business accordingly. The sooner the Government recognise that fact, the better it will be for industry as a whole. I am glad to support the Amendment.

9.22 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I hope the Government will not accept the Amend-
ment. I have for many years listened with admiration to the way in which the tariff policy of the Conservative party— I suppose I ought to say the Government now—has been described by the Lord President of the Council. He has an unfailing formula, and my admiration for the Conservative party is always increased by the way they are willing to swallow that formula, namely, that the object of the Protectionist policy of the Conservative party is simultaneously to give protection and to give bargaining power in regard to our industries. Now that policy is beginning to come home to roost. The absolute irreconcilability the two parts of the same sentence, which the Conservative party have always swallowed quite complacently until they see how it works, is now becoming manifest. They have made their bed and they have to lie on it. The Government, to do them justice, are doing their best to carry out the policy they laid down, namely, to use the tariff for two irreconcilable purposes, that is, to put it on one day and take it off the next. That is what is happening, and that is what is causing this slight friction. If either side of that policy is to be disturbed, either the giving of protection or the taking of it away, I would rather that the emphasis were laid on the taking away of the protection. How on earth we are going into the World Economic Conference unless we are going to have our hands free to reduce tariffs, I do not know. That is the only hope of the world at the present time. To make it more difficult by passing this sort of Amendment, and to say that whatever happens certain definite measures of protection once they have been given must always be maintained, is a terrible expression of want of confidence in the policy which brought the Conservative tariff party into power.
After all, the possibility of duties once given being reduced by a larger proportion than the recipients of those favours hoped is not the worst; of this sort of trade agreement. You make them and you can never be sure what is going to happen. One was made with Sweden, who was to get more of our coal. I do not think the question of the duties on paper ever came up. As a matter of fact, an agreement which gives special assistance to Swedish industries in regard to
our coal without giving any particular assistance to our own industries has the effect of enormously increasing the power of Sweden to produce paper. That is one indirect effect, leaving our own paper manufacturers in the cart. That is the sort of thing which happens as soon as the Government's declared policy of using Protectionist powers in opposite directions takes place. It is only an illustration of how fatal it is to interfere with things you do not understand, and of how, quite inevitably, it is going to have effects which you do not foresee.
As a matter of fact, the structure of British trade is so extraordinarily complicated that when once Governments begin barging in they find, almost before they know where they are, that the consequences of their action are driving them in all sorts of direction they never expected. They have deliberately embarked on that policy, and there it is. The only thing they can reasonably do is to do the best they can with what they have got and, so far as the power of giving protection and taking it off by making special bargains is concerned, to keep the lists fair between putting on and taking off. They keep industry, as they are bound to do, in constant uncertainty as to what they are going to do. The moral is that they had very much better not have started on that policy at all.

9.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLt: : Perhaps I may at this point explain to the Committee the reasons why the Clause has been inserted and why we cannot accept the Amendment. Before doing so I wish to reply to the right hon. Member who has just spoken about the Swedish Agreement. His method of dealing with trade and avoiding uncertainty was to afford no protection at all against foreign imports of any kind. Let us now apply ourselves to the serious argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) that there should be a limit placed on the amount by which a duty should be reduced. Let me point out that this Clause really repeats the policy which was decided upon when the House passed the Import Duties Act. Section 7 of that Act gave the Treasury powers to make an order, on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, providing
for the reduction or removal of the general ad valorem duty or any additional duty charged under the Acts in respect of goods consigned from and grown, produced or manufactured in any foreign country specified in the Order.
We have powers at the present time to carry this out, but we are inserting this Clause in the Bill for certain administrative reasons with which, I think, when explained, the? Committee will agree. On examination, we find, in the first place, that in the present state of our commercial relations with foreign countries, involving general most-favoured treatment in 42 Treaties, any Order made will have to specify all or nearly all of the foreign countries. Further, reductions could only be made in respect of goods which were consigned direct to this country from a country specified in the Order and the original duty would therefore remain on goods which were consigned through an entrepot.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is not that what we have already in respect to Imperial preference? We do not permit Canadian goods to enjoy Imperial preference if they are shipped through American ports?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Then there is the question of imported goods—if a reduction of duty were made—which came from Empire countries not it present entitled to preference under the Ottawa Agreements, as for example, from the Irish Free State. These goods would be chargeable with a higher duty than if they were produced in foreign countries. Goods made in other parts of the Empire but consigned to us from foreign countries would also be liable to higher duties. That is one reason why we want to have this change, but there is another reason. I think when my hon. Friends who have some apprehension about our procedure in the matter of negotiations with foreign countries and, in particular, the question of the most-favoured-nation principle, hear this point they will agree with the wisdom of seeking this power. It is that the powers of the Import Duties Act would not have-the advantage which is sought in this Clause, because a reduction of duty could not be withheld from any country from which it was desired, for particular reasons, to withdraw most-favoured-nation treatment. Therefore, we ask for
the powers contained in this Clause. That is not a reversal of policy. It would be a reversal of policy if the Amendment were adopted, and therefore I ask the House to continue in the policy adopted in the Import Duties Act and to give the Government not only similar powers but to give them the additional powers which the Clause contains to withhold if necessary a reduction of the duty from any country from which we desire to withdraw most-favoured-nation treatment because of their treatment of our goods.

9.33 p.m.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade has not found it possible to be present for this discussion in which he is directly interested by reason of his official position as the Member of the Cabinet specially in charge of these matters. In saying that, I hope the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will not think I am intending any discourtesy to them. I think the difficulty is illustrated by the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Gentleman said he had, in fact, these powers under the original Act, but administrative difficulties had arisen which he desired to avoid by the Clause. Will he forgive me for saying that we here are not interested in the administrative difficulties which we are quite certain the Government are capable of finding the right way of dealing with, whether by legislation or otherwise, and that we shall not offer opposition to any proposals the purpose of which is to make the Act more effective. But we want to challenge the question of principle. The hon. Gentleman may say that the House gave all these powers to the Government by previous legislation, but I think the way in which the Government have used those powers has come as something of a shock to a number of hon. Members in this House. They do not feel that a decision taken in other circumstances and without prevision of the present situation ought to remove this question from discussion as nothing but a mere piece of administrative machinery, but that it must be reviewed again on its merits.
Once again, I ask the Government, are they quite happy in their supporters? Here is the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) who supports the Government because, as he says, the
course which they are pursuing will keep in constant uncertainty the traders of the country and will show the country that they had better never have embarked on a policy which is the common policy of the supporters of the Government. Are the Government quite comfortable in their alliance? Are they sure that a cause which can be defended by any opponents of their policy on such grounds as that is sound? Does not the argument which the right hon. Member for North Cornwall has addressed to them for their comfort and support cause them to think that a little more reflection might have led them to adopt more suitable methods for carrying out a policy upon which they and we are agreed, but to which the right hon. Gentleman is a declared opponent?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Some of them have declared themselves as being free-traders like ourselves—the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not affect anything I have said. The President of the Board of Trade supports a policy to which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) and Members below the Gangway are declared opponents, and they support the President of the Board of Trade because they think he is destroying his own policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] They agree. Will the Parliamentary Secretary make a note of the attitude and convey faithfully to the President of the Board of Trade the reasons for which his enemies are going to support him—I do not mean personal enemies, I am talking in terms of politics. I have spoken on this subject already on the German Agreement, and I illustrated my contentions by reference to particular trades of which I have some knowledge, and where, therefore, I felt sure of my ground. Amongst others I alluded to the jewellery trade. A little earlier this evening the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) with what I must call a smug complacency contrasted the attitude of hon. Members like myself, who defend the interests of their constituents, with the noble attitude of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, who would gladly, any day, sacrifice the interests of his constituents to the wider interests of the country but for the fact that the interests of the country always
Colncide with the interests of his constituency. I am not ashamed to defend the interests of my constituents or to express their views, and I will only say in reply to the hon. Member that I hope if the occasion requires I shall have courage enough to oppose my constituents and defend before them a line which may be unpopular if I think that it is right.
I am not going to repeat the error I made of distracting attention from my arguments to-night by using any illustration. I am going to speak in general terms. I thought that the Government were on strong grounds in opposing the last Amendment. A general ad valorem duty was commended to this House primarily as a duty for revenue, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can afford to sacrifice some of that revenue it is a matter of using that for bargaining purposes. Moreover, a general ad valorem duty was a very rough and ready emergency instrument put into operation pending more careful examination and treatment, and it therefore stands on a wholly different footing from these duties, which have been imposed as the result of searching inquiry by the Import Duties Advisory Board. I would not have gone into the Lobby in support of the earlier Amendment after listening to my hon. Friend, but I beg him to give further consideration to she Amendment which is now before the Committee. Why did we establish a Tariff Advisory Board? Not all of us wished for it, or thought that it w is the best way to proceed. It was a rather novel idea which came into existence in consequence of the formation of the National Government, and the Government justified it on the ground that traders required security, that there must be a tribunal or board to examine each case on its merits and see that the interests of the individual trader were not allowed to bear down or overcast the interests of the general community. Every duty put on at the advice of the Import Duties Advisory Board has gone through that test. Traders have to prove necessity. They have to show that what they ask for would not be injurious to the national interests as a whole, and they have to meet the objections of competitors.
But more than that, the Government had another object. They wished to
take the details of tariffs away from the Floor of this House, to remove them from political pressure, and, if my memory serves me right, one of the earliest acts of the Tariff Advisory Board was to issue a notice to Members of Parliament warning them off. I do not mean individuals. It was a public notice published in the Press. If my memory is playing me false I beg the Government to correct me, but if my memory serves me it was a notice that the Tariff Advisory Committee would be ready to hear authorised trade representatives, and would be glad to hear them, but that it was not desirable to have representations from politicians. I thought that was very wise. I dare say that even within the last few days I have had some reason to be grateful to the Advisory Committee for issuing that notice, as it has enabled me to say to my correspondents, "The Tariff Advisory Committee is there to prevent political pressure and political interference with the real solid trade interests of the country. It is not I who can take up your case. The Tariff Advisory Committee will not listen to me as a Member of Parliament. Go to your Chamber of Commerce, or your trade association, and they will give you the fullest and fairest consideration."
Yes, all that. But then the Government come down and ask for general power, after the Advisory Committee has decided on certain duties as not more than are required to enable a trade to be successfully carried on, to transfer the issue from the serene sphere of the Advisory Committee, where politics do not penetrate, on to the Floor of this House, where every discussion takes a political tinge. The Government take them away from the commissioners, who will listen to the authorised commercial bodies, and throw them open for discussion by Members of Parliament. In this respect I do not think that the Government have really thought out their policy or its consequences. I plead for further consideration of the matter.
There must be in the policy of the Government—not for the policy of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on these benches —some minimum of protection which, not every industry but certain industries, ought to (have generally; there are special cases, not all, which are to have their security and their protection not through
a duty but through a quota. But where there is a duty there will be a certain minimum which is necessary to enable the industry to be successfully established or developed or carried on. Is that necessary minimum to be the figure with which you bargain? If so, esc hypothesi, every time you make a bargain you ruin, or partially ruin, some industry. If you have a tariff which is fixed not as a bargaining tariff but as the minimum necessary for the existence or development of an industry, and then begin to whittle that away in a series of negotiations, which at present are conducted with one country, though we have been reminded that every concession is applicable to 41 other countries, though that may be ultimately changed—if you do that, then you1 destroy the efficacy of the tariff from the point of view of developing home production.
I am by this time a pretty old Tariff Reformer. We have pleaded for security. We have said that we did not desire a very high tariff, but we have pleaded that a measure of security and preference in his own market should be given to the British producer, to put him on some comparable footing with that of every man and every other manufacturer with whom he competes in any single part of the world. I do plead that there ought to be given to the traders some measure of security, and that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend which would leave you free to deal as you wish with the general ad valorem duty which is imposed by rule of thumb primarily for revenue— and allows you to deal with a third of any duty imposed on the advice of the Tariff Advisory Committee, gives you ample latitude for negotiation, provided you do not give notice to all the world— I do not think that that was the intention of the Board of Trade—that this which is your minimum is also your maximum.
A right hon. Gentleman below me has made merry about bargaining under these conditions. Those to whom he stands the political heir and who shared his views in the years far back—did they find it easy to negotiate or to obtain tariff concessions from other countries? When offering Free Trade, an open door and open ports to all competitors, did they have a great success in reducing foreign tariffs? Did they break down the walls that surrounded other countries either by
their example or by their sweet persuasiveness?

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Trade was no worse in those days than now.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is about as foolish an interruption as I have heard in 40 years' experience. The late Lord Salisbury, in a speech on this subject of negotiations with foreign countries, gave an explanation many years ago, and it is a simple one. He said that "those who go to market with an empty pocket come home with empty baskets." When you have given all that you have to give and are not in any circumstances prepared to refuse anything, you do not meet with the gratitude which in a better world no doubt would lead every other country to put you in a more favourable position than any of your competitors. But if you must use your tariff, there ought to be a minimum which gives security to the home producer. That minimum, be it one of two-thirds of the duty, be it three-quarters, or whatever it is, will govern the action of the British producer in entering on new enterprises and putting in new Capttal into business and making developments and in continuing to fight where he is making little profit in the hope of better days to come.
That minimum security is the basis on which he can plan, and, if you destroy that basic security, then is your tariff very much use? It is an incident of today; it is gone to-morrow. That is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall desires; that is why he supports the present action of the Government—because he believes it to be fatal to their considered policy. It is because I believe it, if not fatal, at least profoundly injurious to their declared intentions, and to their policy, that I beg them not to wrap themselves up in the negative which has been given to us so far, but to consider afresh whether they cannot do something to meet the necessities of traders who are not yet affected but who feel now that at any moment the basis on which they have entered into business may be cut away from under their feet, not because any new inquiry by the impartial Advisory Committee has shown that the duty was miscalculated or that they have abused the protection given to
them but because somebody—to-day my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to-morrow perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall—because somebody feels it convenient to sacrifice them in order to make a bargain about which he is keen as we are all keen when we try to make bargains. You destroy the whole purpose of your duty if you do not leave your manufacturer a settled measure of protection which gives him security and enables him to plan his operations on a considered and lasting scale.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The Committee has listened to a very powerful speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) who has a very great influence in certain quarters in the House of Commons and whose speech must, necessarily, greatly embarrass the Government in carrying out their trade policy. The difficulty is that there is a great difference between the policy of the Conservative party and the policy of His Majesty's Government as we understand it. Conservative Members find themselves in the position of attempting to impose on the Government a policy which is profoundly inconsistent with what the Government may find themselves compelled to do in the negotiations which are bound to take place at the World Economic Conference. I remember the President of the Board of Trade making the situation perfectly clear when this Import Duties Advisory Committee was set up, and the right hon. and distinguished brother of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham also made it clear. They said, in effect, that it would be an excellent thing if we could have universal Free Trade, and as I understood the position of the Conservative party, they also have said "We do not believe in Protection as a world system. We believe in Free Trade as a world system." The attitude of the Conservative party was we understood that they were arming themselves with the device of tariffs in order to protect British industry against the tariffs which existed elsewhere. Indeed, I have never yet met a 100 per cent. Protectionist except the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) who believes that we can
secure the maximum export trade and the maximum home production at one and the same time. All other Conservative Members are really 100 per cent. Free Traders, but they argue that the only means of accomplishing Free Trade in the world is to arm the Government of this country with the same power to impose tariffs as that possessed by every other Government in the world.
What do the Government desire to secure? They desire to use the tariffs which have been imposed on the advice of the Advisory Committee, in an attempt to secure the maximum reduction in tariffs throughout the world. Is that Conservative policy or do the Conservative party desire to maintain Protection in Great Britain independently of what happens in the rest of the world? The President of the Board of Trade is, I understand, entering into negotiations with many other countries and is attempting to secure reciprocal trade agreements between Great Britain and other nations. He desires to be armed with the power to reduce tariffs, in order to secure reciprocal bargains from other countries-Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham object If, as he says, this policy introduces insecurity into trade and commerce, that is the inevitable accompaniment of this type of fiscal arrangement. If you are going to impose tariffs so as to have a bargaining weapon, you cannot expect security. If you are going to have Protection because you are a 100 per cent. Protectionist believing that Protection qua Protection is best, then set out to impose it but do not try to have both. That is the difficulty of the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He wants to make the best of both worlds. That is the difficulty of a National Government attempting to carry out a sensible and enlightened fiscal policy in relation to other countries—the difficulty of feeding the voracious maws of private interests at home.
There is an even greater objection to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Who is ultimately responsible for the imposition of tariffs, the House of Commons or the Import Duties Advisory Committee? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Advisory Committee issued instructions, or issued a request, that they should not be bothered by repre-
sentations from politicians. We, at the time, took exception to this arrangement, because we said if the House of Commons believed in a policy it ought to have the courage to impose it and it ought not to attempt to shelter behind any body set up in this way. The Advisory Committee has recommended a series of tariffs upon a wide range of British industries, but it is this House which imposes them. What does the right hon. Gentleman suggest? That when representatives of His Majesty's Government enter into negotiations with a foreign nation for the organisation of British trade and commerce they should be dictated to by a body that has no electoral responsibility. What he said in effect was that you should not take a tariff off, unless the Advisory Committee have advised that should be done.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Would the hon. Member mind reading the Amendment which we are discussing and he will see at once that it is not that.

Mr. BEVAN: The right hon. Gentleman says that, as to two-thirds of the tariff that is the suggestion, and the principle remains the same if it is only one-tenth of it. The House of Commons is the master as to whether tariffs should be imposed or not, and I would have much more respect for the right hon. Gentleman and for the Conservative party if they argued the merits of the tariff case on the Floor of the House of Commons, and said that in their judgment it was desirable that the House of Commons should give the maximum protection to British industry and the maximum security to the British trader, and that no matter what happened in the rest of the world, those tariffs should be imposed. But what I cannot sympathise with, and what I am sure the country will not countenance, is this cowardly method of running behind the Tariff Advisory Committee and throwing away the trust which this country imposes in this House. I hope this profoundly anti-democratic attitude of mind will be resented by this Chamber. There is not a Member here who would dare to go to his constituency and say, "Elect me to the House of Commons, and I will give your power away." He would say, "Elect me to the House of Commons, and I will do my best to protect your interests there." Democracy dare not
ask democracy to give its power away. [An HON. MEMBER: "Except in Russia."] Please do not let us have this juvenile talk. If you have such a love for those methods that you wish to imitate them, say so.
We are defending the right of the President of the Board of Trade to speak on behalf of the House of Oommons, to declare the policy of the Government, and to secure, if he can, in a perfectly free manner, the free flow of trade and commerce in as large portions of the globe as possible. It would be disastrous, it would be hypocrisy, to enter the World Economic Conference after having admitted an Amendment of this description. The Government have agreed with President Roosevelt and declared that among the principal contributions to the world crisis are these restrictions on the commerce of the world, and yet the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and these loyal patriots in the Conservative party, who are supposed to be supporting a National Government and anxious to secure the restoration of world trade, are suggesting that we should say to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, "We allow you to tell us that if you wish to take two-thirds of a tariff off, we will accept your instructions."
Sir George May and his Committee have been appointed by this House, and this House remains the master of the situation at the moment. I hope it will be said that the kind of case put up by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who, behind his desire to thwart the plans of the Government and to secure for certain industries of Great Britain the maximum protection, but who is not anxious to argue it on the Floor of the House of Commons, where it may be seen, but wants it sent to a Committee, where it can be hidden. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Look over the history of the last few years in this House. Is it suggested for a moment that the Orders that have gone through have been properly discussed? They have had to be taken as a whole, and their merits have not been discussed. We have been thwarted and gagged—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—at 11 o'clock at night; and, as a matter of fact, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said that the Advisory Committee was appointed in order that we might be gagged.
So impartial is that Committee, that the right hon. Gentleman has perfect confidence in it. He knows very well that it is so impartial that it can be trusted not to take tariffs off. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has taken them off."] It has taken them off in certain very small instances, but the policy of tariffs was carried out on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and we had no opportunity of examining the evidence. The right hon. Gentleman opposite accuses the Liberal Members of desiring now to reject this Amendment because they are Free Traders. He wishes to carry the Amendment, because he knows that the Import Duties Advisory Committee is Protectionist. This House is, as I understand it, whatever it may suit the industry of the country to be at the time of negotiating. It has declared itself neither 100 per cent. Protectionist nor 100 per cent. Free Trade, and if it wishes to escape the restrictions of either of those two positions, it will leave the President of the Board of Trade free to conduct negotiations with other? countries without restrictions imposed by the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

10.13 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: It would be no unfair description of the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down to say that it reminds one of someone who is pressing at golf. He is dealing with an Amendment that he has never read, he is dealing with a subject of which he has obviously insufficient knowledge, and he is assuming an economic authority which he certainly does not possess. So much for the hon. Member.
I rose only for the purpose of putting one or two questions to the President of the Board of Trade, and may I say, Captain Bourne, through you, to the President of the Board of Trade how pleased we are now to have him with us, because he not only occupies one of the most important offices in His Majesty's Government, but he is admittedly, in the opinion both of his political enemies and his political friends—he has no personal enemies in this House—one of the most distinguished persons who has ever occupied that office. Therefore, it is a little unfortunate, with all the authority and the knowledge that he has, that he could not find it possible to be here earlier to
hear the speeches of two ex-Cabinet Ministers—three, I think—and two other ex-Ministers, that have been delivered on this subject. We all know the multifarious duties which Members of the Government have to carry out nowadays, and I am making no complaint about his not being present, but he will recollect the early days in this House, the old, far-off days, when it was considered that the first duty of a Minister when an important question affecting his Department was under consideration was to be in the House, however important his outside duties might be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] Hon. Members may not like the reference to the past, but it is true. However, we have him with us now, and I am sure he will answer with facility—

Mr. LANSBURY: Make the most of him.

Earl WINTERTON: It is not for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to defend the President of the Board of Trade. The Leader of the Opposition is, as a matter of fact, extremely assiduous in his attendance.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: It is only right to say that the President of the Board of Trade has made three long speeches on the subject of this trade negotiation policy.

Earl WINTERTON: Really, my hon. and gallant Friend's intervention is most unfortunate and if he had had long knowledge of the House of Commons, he would not have made it, but would have known that it is the duty of a Minister to be present when matters affecting his Department were under consideration. I have something unfriendly to say about the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). The right hon. Gentleman delivered a very pleasant homily to all of us who support the Protectionist policy, but I thought that it was of a somewhat paternal character. The intellectual superiority which Members of the Liberal party —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"]—invariably adopt about these fiscal questions is one of the causes why their numbers are so small. He attempted to deal with what I regard as the one serious argument which he brought against my right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. He began by
making the charge that we, the Government supporters on the Back Benches, had supported the bi-lateral policy which he said was a hopelessly illogical one and which had been put forward so constantly by the Lord President of the Council, namely, that on the one hand we were in favour of a protective tariff, and that on the other hand we wanted to use that tariff only for bargaining purposes. That was the charge which the right hon. Gentleman made, and it has been more or less supported by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan).
May I say, as one who has taken part in fiscal controversies in this House for a good many years, that this is not a true statement of the attitude which has always been taken up by those who make plain cause, as we do—and we are not ashamed of doing it—with the Protectionist party. We have said it is necessary for this country, above all other countries, which has a far higher standard of living than any of its business competitors to have a tariff to protect that standard of living. Nobody would dispute that that is the historic attitude which the Conservative party has invariably taken up. Neither in the present controversy nor in the old days of the controversy led by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, have we ever denied that, having obtained our protection, it could be used to a lesser or greater degree as circumstances permitted for retaliatory or bargaining purposes. There is nothing in the least illogical in that attitude. We have always said, as has been so ably and clearly stated by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) to-night, that there must be a basic protective tariff, but that that tariff should be of such a nature that it is possible to add to it or detract from it as circumstances necessitated for either bargaining or retaliatory purposes. There was nothing in the least illogical in the attitude we took up, and we who have been pressing these measures on the Government, though we are supporters of the Government, must not be held responsible for everything that the Government have said on the subject.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The Noble Lord will remember that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said that a tariff had been imposed
on the advice of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to prevent certain industries in Great Britain from being either wholly or partially ruined. If the tariff is reduced, that obviously is done to permit goods to come in, and if they come in then they prevent certain goods from being produced at home, and in that way must necessarily lead to the ruin wholly or partially of some industry which he wants to support.

Earl WINTERTON: No, that is not the point at all. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman I will restate what has been our historic attitude in this matter. We have said it is necessary to have a protective tariff for the industries of this country. In that, of course, we differ from the hon. Gentlemen on the front two benches below the Gangway. We have been fighting for this for 25 years, and everything that has happened in those 25 years has strengthened our position argumentatively and logically and has weakened theirs. But we have always said from the days of the distinguished father of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham that we must have powers for addition to or subtraction from a tariff for the purpose of carrying out either a policy of retaliation or for obtaining concessions. That is perfectly clear, and there is nothing illogical in that.
I will mention one thing which I hope the President of the Board of Trade will reply to. I do not want to refer to an incident which produced, shall I say, some disturbance in the Committee, but the Secretary for Overseas Trade referred to previous speeches made by the President of the Board of Trade on this subject. It is quite true he has made speeches, but to my mind, and to the minds of all of those who think as my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham think, he has never answered this point, which has been put again and again in the course of these Debates. It has always been held that you can have one of two things. You can have a Free Trade system or a Tariff system, but you cannot have A system which changes from one day to another. An industry can carry on under Free Trade or under Protection, but it cannot carry on in this way. When it is
granted a protective tariff on its merits by the Advisory Committee—and I did not quite follow the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, in what he said about the Advisory Committee; I do not know whether he was in favour of it or not—naturally the industry thinks the tariff is going to be continued; but then, suddenly, not as the result of any merits or demerits of that particular industry, but because the Government want to come to bargaining terms with some other country, it finds itself deprived of that Protection. We say that is an impossible system. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Free Traders and Protectionists alike are agreed about that, and the gravamen of the charge against the Government is that everybody is agreed that that is an impossible system.
It may be the answer of the President of the Board of Trade to say that the danger has been greatly exaggerated by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and that that is not the effect of what we are doing, but we are afraid that it is the effect, and that is why I earnestly hope the Government will accept this Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend. It cannot be called an extravagant Amendment; on the contrary, it allows a very substantial alteration to be made, but it gives this basic Protection, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman with that courtesy which he always shows to opponents, and the care he always takes to answer a case, will tell us hew he meets the case put up by my two right hon. Friends. In conclusion never was a truer thing said in this House than was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. One of the most damning indictments of the Government's policy in this particular is that they have received support from the very people who hate the duties and who left the Government because of their fiscal policy. They have given their support because they think that it is going 1o kill the very fiscal policy which the Government are putting forward.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not rise in order to take part in this domestic controversy I think, as has been said several times, that the position is quite an impossible and illogical one. The only way out is to get rid of the trinity that has been set up, and to bring the
whole business back on to the floor of the House of Commons. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, almost before the Committee had got to work, were bringing forward matters which they wanted dealt with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will refer hon. Members to the OFFICIAL REPORT, in confirmation of what I have been saying.
I have got up to remind the Committee that the controversy which has arisen has brought us, at this late hour, to the position that very few of the large number of Clauses that we are told are to be got through have been dealt with. With the overwhelming Majority of Tories in this place, it is so easy for them to oppose their own Government that they have erected a second, a third and a fourth opposition, and they take up much of the time quarrelling with one another. The manner in which those Tories love one another is beyond words. I can never get down to the sort of language that they use to each other. I have risen to make a protest against so many speeches, on the same subject and taking the same line, made by hon. Members who are supporters of the Government. I do not think that we ought to have been lectured, quite in the fashion in which the noble Lord has taken it into his head to lecture us, on behaviour and procedure, and all the rest of it. We are all very indebted to him, but we would rather he did not do it at this time of night. We are all the better for it, no doubt.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that I have never lectured him in my life? I have a far greater regard for him. It was his supporters.

Mr. LANSBURY: My supporters are me, and I am them. Honestly, it is too bad that we have had to listen to so many Conservative Protectionist speakers trying to make clear what can never be made clear, and that is that their kind of Protection can work. I want to ask the Patronage Secretary either to keep them down or to give us another two or three days.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There have been three speeches in support of this proposal to-night, and the right hon. Gentleman's is the third speech against it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have been watching the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman himself made a fairly long speech on the subject, while the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment spoke for not quite so long. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham has given us his version, and there has been one speech from here and quite a short speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). Whether we are few or many, the Opposition are asked, because of circumstances which, we admit, the Government are unable to control, to help to expedite the business, and I do not think that hon. Members who support the Government should take up the time that they do.

10.30 p.m.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I need hardly say that, had I received notice that I should be required here, I should certainly have cancelled my engagement in order to hear what was said by my right hon. Friends and by our colleagues behind me on this Amendment, but I was informed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department were both fully prepared to deal with the points that were likely to arise, and, having some very intimate experience of them, I was quite prepared to entrust them with the duty; but, had I had the least idea that I should be required in this Debate, I would have cancelled my engagement beforehand, and should, of course, have been at the service of the Committee.
The point which has been discussed is a comparatively simple one. This Amendment does not deal with purely technical considerations; those were discussed, admirably I am told, by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, who pointed out the administrative difficulties which it was sought to overcome. That, however, was not the principle that was under discussion. The principle under discussion was whether or not it was advisable to reduce duties in order to obtain a tariff bargain with some other countries. That was the main point that was put by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and I understand that it was also put with great force in other
quarters of the Committee. May I point out—

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If my right hon. Friend will pardon me, it will not answer my point, or that of my right hon. Friend, if he states the case exactly in that way. The Amendment admits of a reduction of the duties fixed on the advice of the Tariff Board and approved by the House of Commons, but our contention was that there ought to be a minimum below which reductions should not be carried, and that, if further bargaining latitude was required, it should be obtained by raising the duties against the parties with whom it was not possible to come to an agreement, and not by reducing that minimum.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the argument of my right hon. Friend, and was going to set out, as the second, and perhaps the subsidiary point, the means of achieving the end that he had in view. Let the Committee consider what would be our position if we entered into negotiations limited in that way. We might find, on some matter of comparative unimportance—unimportant to us, perhaps, but of considerable importance to the country with whom we were negotiating —that it would be advisable to go a little further than that hard-and-fast limit, and it would be a great pity to spoil the negotiations for the sake of that small differentiation. There is an old saying that it is not worth while spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar, and one might easily spoil agreements for the sake of points which are of, perhaps, larger importance in other countries, although comparatively unimportant here.
I do not think that the Government are unreasonable in asking that there should be considerable latitude in the conduct of these negotiations. Let the Committee remember what has been the intention of this Parliament from its earliest days. One of the earliest Measures introduced here was the Import Duties Bill, which is now enshrined in the Import Duties Act. Section 7 of the Import Duties Act lays it down as a duty on the Government to deal by way of negotiation with these very problems with other countries. It provides the means of doing it. If hon. Members will turn to the Section 19, on which we are working, they will find there
set out quite plainly the means by which it is to be done, namely, by a lowering if necessary, or modification, of tariffs. That is not unreasonable. Indeed, it was accepted by the great Majority of the House as being the normal way and one essential element in our fiscal policy. That was expounded not only in the course of the Debate by other Members, but a description was given of it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I once before brought to the notice of the House. It is expressed in such good words that I beg the House to allow me to read once more exactly what he said on that subject. He was dealing with this very point of lowering tariff barriers in order to secure the lowering of tariff barriers elsewhere.
The second provision is designed to facilitate the lowering of tariff barriers in foreign countries by offering to reduce our own in return for an advantage of that kind. In this case also the initiative lies with the Board of Trade, which will conduct the negotiations and, on a recommendation from the Board of Trade, the Treasury will have the power to direct the removal or the fixing of a lower rate on any goods from the particular country concerned which may be specified in the Order. We attach a good deal of importance to this provision as a bargaining factor, but I should like to take the opportunity of stating clearly that we do not intend to conclude any arrangements of this kind with any foreign country until we have made our agreements with the conference at Ottawa.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) asked:
Does that apply to the revenue tariff only or to the higher duties?"—[OFFICIAL REPOKT, 4th February, 1932; col. 295, Vol. 261.]
We have been debating to-night the higher duties, the additional duties, as they are called in the Act. To that the Chancellor replied "Both." It was made perfectly clear in that Debate, it remains on record, and it was accepted by the House without the slightest demur. There were no misgivings and no reservations. It was not in the least necessary for the Noble Lord to say anything about it because he was satisfied then, and I believe in his heart he is still satisfied. The really important point that agitates his mind is that he is a little afraid that, in making these tariff negotiations, we shall whittle away the element of protection which is no inconsiderable comfort to the industries that he represents.
That, I know, is his Major point. May I point out to my Noble Friend, who, I have no doubt, speaks with considerable authority, when he says that when I have to deal with these matters at the Board of Trade I should consult with bodies outside, that in the Debate on the 1st or 4th of May I was adjured by many of my Parliamentary colleagues to consult organisations outside. The last time I had a consultation with an organisation outside, the very last letter that I received on. this subject from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce contained this very important sentence, which I should like to communicate to the House, as being the considered recorded view of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce:
My council also realise that the Import Duties Advisory Committee would at once become involved in party politics if they wore made responsible for trade treaties. As it is of supreme importance that the Import Duties Advisory Committee should remain free from party ties, my council agree that the decision to reduce or cancel tariff protection must rest with His Majesty's Government alone.
They ask more than that. I do not ask the Committee to consider that that is quite sufficient for their purpose. They want assurances as to what we intend to do, and the course that we are likely to take. I am only too glad to repeat the assurance which I believe has already been given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. He has stated categorically that we attach the greatest weight to the opinion of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and, within the limits of the functions which are laid down, for us by Act of Parliament, and which have been announced and enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we intend continuously for the future, as we have done in the past, to attach weight to the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I go further than that and say that, when we are conducting any negotiations, we attach far more weight to the opinions of that Committee than we do to the sporadic opinions which may be picked up haphazard, which might be the result of all sorts of pressure from organisations. We would rather accept the view of the Committee which scientifically examines the conditions of the industry with which it is concerned.
When that committee has made those recommendations which we find are related in some way or another to the negotiations we are having to carry on, we must, as the Act contemplated, have the power to vary them. I admit that there are some instances where those who are intimately connected with an industry and whose sole attention is concentrated upon the industry regard whatever may be done in lowering the protection of that industry as of more importance than its effect upon trade as a whole. One of my hon. Friends frankly and plainly stated in the course of our Debates that he attached far more importance to the industry of the constituency he represented than he did to the trade of the whole of the country. That is an extreme view, but the fact remains that it illustrates a very natural tendency. It is the duty of the Government to take the broadest possible view of our trade and commercial relations and of our trade and commercial interests. It is in the course of that duty that I would plead with the Committee that they will trust us with the duties which have been imposed by Act of Parliament and not be suspicious of our trying to get rid of a policy of which we are the authors. I need hardly say that I have not modified my views in the course of these discussions or of these negotiations. They remain what they were. I believe that the negotiations have been of very great benefit to the trade of the country as a whole. I ask that we should be left with full powers to make the best bargains we can on behalf of the whole of the interests of this country, and, if in course of time it is thought necessary by the Committee or the House to make a full examination of all we have done in the light of results, which, I hope, are going to come very rapidly, we shall only be too ready to hear the criticism and do what we can to defend our policy.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: May I make an appeal to my right hon. Friend? If he feels that he cannot accept the actual wording of the Amendment, is it impossible for him to give some assurance which would satisfy, not only the Committee, but, what is far more important, industry in this country? Could he tell us that, except in very exceptional circumstances, he will not in fact consider reducing the
duties recommended by the Advisory Committee by more than one-third of the additional duty. If he could tell us that that was a general principle which was not to be departed from, except in very special circumstances, he would give to the industry of this country a measure of assurance, which, I would earnestly ask him to accept from me, is desired by industry, and without which it is not in a position to carry on with any confidence.

Amendment negatived.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 8, after the word "made," to insert the words, "for imposing a duty of customs."
The Amendment, if carried, would make it necessary that, when duties are to be reduced as a result of a trade agreement, an Order providing for the reduction must be submitted to this House by means of an affirmative vote moved by the Government. As the matter stands under the existing provisions of the Import Duties Act, such an Order lies on the Table, and, unless private Members pray against it, it automatically comes into operation at the end of the statutory period. We take the view that in these matters the final decision as to the extent to which duties should be reduced ought to be a decision taken by the House of Commons. Accordingly, we desire to apply to the reduction of a duty the normal procedure which applies to the increase of a duty. In the ordinary way, the negotiating power of the Government, the right of the Government to enter into ordinary contractual relationship with ether Powers, is an administrative act, and when that administrative act affects taxation it seems to me that the House of Commons should not abandon its immemorial rights in the matter of taxation. Accordingly, the administrative power of the Government ought to be circumscribed to the extent I am proposing in the Amendment, namely, that when they propose to reduce duties those reductions should be submitted to this House, and unless this House within 28 Parliamentary days approves of those reductions, the Order should lapse.

Dr. BURGIN: I must ask the Committee to resist the Amendment. Under Section 19 of the Import Duties Act there is already power to reduce or remove additional duties by an Order which does not require an affirmative Resolution. Surely, the object of the Amendment is to see that an agreement with a foreign country is debated in the House of Commons. The appropriate time for that Debate is when the agreement itself is presented to Parliament, and before it is ratified. There is hardly any doubt that if the House showed a great desire to discuss any particular trade agreement arrangements would be made and time found for it, and it seems to me that another Debate on an Order putting the agreement into force would only be a repetition of the main question. On these grounds I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. HALL-CALNE: I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, at the end to add the words:
Provided that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to the commercial agreements signed prior to the passing of this Act.
After the long Debate we have had on this Clause it would be inconsiderate of me to delay the Committee more than a few moments, but I should like to protest against the attitude adopted by the Leader of the Opposition when he wished to muzzle the supporters of the Government and not allow them to speak on important questions of this kind affecting their constituents. It must have been apparent to the President of the Board of Trade that the industry of this country is much concerned as to the methods under which the trade agreements which have so far been signed were conducted. Three of those agreements, the one with Argentina, the one with Germany and the one with Denmark have been discussed on the Floor of the House. The object of my Amendment is to allow the two agreements which have been signed but not yet ratified, those with Norway and Sweden, to be discussed on the Floor of the House. By doing that we should comply with the idea expressed by an hon. Member who spoke from the Labour benches by giving the House of Commons
further power to express its opinions on the agreements.
One of the reasons why industry is very much concerned about these negotiations is not that it has not complete confidence in the industrial and business ability of the President of the Board of Trade, but because it feels that the agreements are not being negotiated in the same business manner which he would perhaps use in the great industries over which he has had control. In other words, there are two methods in which you can negotiate an international agreement. You can do it in camera, with officials of the Board of Trade meeting officials of the Ministry of Commerce of a foreign country. Everything is kept secret and the decision rests entirely between those two parties who are negotiating, and then, having come to a decision, they announce that decision and agreement to the world. On the other hand, you can make an agreement between the President of the Board of Trade and his officials, with trade consultants, and the Minister of Commerce of a foreign nation, with their trade consultants, and, as the result of these negotiations, you can make a satisfactory agreement. But you cannot make an agreement where, on the one side, you have complete secrecy and, on the other side, a foreign nation which has trade consultants who are all the time passing that information on to their country and to the traders behind them.
We have found in these two agreements—which I shall not be allowed to discuss to-night—the effect has been that in both Norway and Sweden there was prior knowledge of what was in the agreements, with the result that great advantage has been taken over certain trades in this country. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson) mentioned the case of ball-bEarlngs, and there is also timber and the question of paper. All these trades have suffered, not so much because of the agreements, but because what was in the agreements has been anticipated. I hope it will not be necessary for me to press this Amendment, because I trust the President of the Board of Trade will give an assurance that we shall have a day for the discussion of the Norwegian and Swedish Agreements, which affect very seriously a large number of industries. If that
assurance is given, it will not be necessary for me to press the Amendment.

10.53 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member is, of course, aware that a discussion will take place on the agreements relating to Norway and Sweden provided there is any demand for it and the ordinary steps are taken. Had he pressed his Amendment I should have asked the Committee to resist it, because there are powers under Section 19 of the Act, as it is, to enforce reductions in additional duties; but this Section is necessary to reduce general ad valorem duties. Consequently, I must ask the Committee to allow the Clause to-pass.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.54 p.m.

Mr. ALBERY: I think some of the Amendments moved during the discussion on this Clause show a complete misunderstanding as to the basis on which negotiations with foreign countries must be conducted. It is not of any great importance to foreign countries negotiating with us whether a duty be raised or lowered by a specific percentage. The only thing which really matters is whether the percentage by which the duty is lowered is going to allow them, to sell a greater quantity of goods in this country. Therefore, to endeavour to base negotiations on or to limit negotiations by any specific percentage is to destroy all power to negotiate. The foreign countries negotiating with us will readily accept a reduction of 5 per cent, if it enables them to sell a larger quantity of goods in this country. On the other hand, they will not accept a reduction of 20 per cent, or negotiate on that basis, if it does not enable them to sell more of their goods.

CLAUSE 13.—(Amendments as to Imperial Preference.)

10.55 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 20, to leave out paragraph (b)
We desire to have an explanation from the Government as to why it has been necessary to change the old definition of the Act of 1919. Perhaps the hon. Member will give us that explanation.

10.56 p.m.

Dr. BUR GIN: I was under the impression that the Amendment had been put down as a request for an explanation and have so framed my reply. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave quite unchanged the position as to Imperial Preference under Section 8 of the Finance Act of 1919. Two points arise on this Clause; one the meaning of the word "labour," and the second, as to whether in discussing Empire content the United Kingdom counts as part of the Empire. It is very necessary to see that the definition of "labour" is watertight. The words used in this Clause are watertight, and the United Kingdom under paragraph (b) does come within the Empire for the purpose' of calculating Empire content. A case has recently arisen of the export of goods from the United Kingdom to Canada being included in a Canadian article for the purpose of increasing the Empire content. Under the legislation as it is at present there seems to be a doubt whether United Kingdom goods can count in the calculation. It is for that reason that these words, which are calculated to define "labour," and Empire content, making the United Kingdom contribution part of the Empire content, are necessary.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I should have thought that the old words "as the result of labour" are fairly simple to understand. Now there are to be substituted the words:
is derived from expenditure of a kind so prescribed which has been incurred in the British Empire or the United Kingdom.
How that makes it clearer what "labour" means I entirely fail to understand. I understand "labour," but I do not understand why that which "is derived from expenditure of a kind so prescribed" can be a definition of "labour." Perhaps the hon. Member will explain.

Dr. BURGIN: I will do my best. "Labour" has been defined as including cost of materials of Empire origin. The new definition enables the United Kingdom to be brought within Empire origin.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Really, I am sorry, but I must trouble the hon. Member again. The result of labour is something which everybody understands, but what is meant by the words "is derived from
expenditure of a kind so prescribed"? Why is the criterion now to be not the labour which is expended but the expenditure which presumably refers to money and not to labour "of a kind so prescribed." Why has the emphasis been changed from the place where the labour is carried out to the place where the money is expended? It might be an entirely different place. The labour may be expended in one place while the payment may be made in another country altogether.

Dr. BURGIN: The object of the Clause is to estimate a proportion and value attributable to Empire material and labour. The object is that the proportion of the finished article which reaches this country should have a given minimum of Empire content. The word "labour" is a comprehensive term which can mean a great deal or very little. You are endeavouring to put into that word the cost of materials, wages, factory overhead charges, and cost of labour of packing for retail sale. That is a very wide interpretation to give to one word. So it is proposed to substitute the identical meaning in a broad sense of what is desired by saying that you must have expenditure in respect of materials or work done and you give the proper power to prescribe by regulation what that expenditure is to include, what is to come within it. It is to give a workmanlike set of words to produce the identical result desired.

Sir S. CRIPPS: My cross-examination having failed completely, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 14 (Substitution of a specific duty for general ad valorem duty,)15 ((Amendment as to additional duties under) 22 & 23 Geo. 5.c. 8), 16 (Applica-cation to embroidered goods of 22 & 23 Geo. 5. c. 8.s. 14), 17 (Extension of 22 & 23 Geo. 5. c. 8 s. 14 as respects goods subjected to a process abroad), 18 (Miscellaneous amendments as to goods dutiable under 15 & 16 Geo, 5. c. 36, s. 3 and 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c. 47) and 19 (Deduction from duty repaid under 15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 36, s. 3), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 20.—(Amendment as to permits and certificates accompanying spirits.)

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I beg to move, in page 16, line 32, at the end, to add the words:
For the purpose of the said Sub-section (9) spirits described as gin shall not be deemed to correspond to that description unless they have been obtained by distillation in the United Kingdom from a mash of cereal grain saccharified by the diastase of malt and flavoured by redistillation in the United Kingdom with juniper berries and other vegetable ingredients, and spirits described as London gin shall not be deemed to correspond to that description unless they have been so obtained by distillation in the United Kingdom and so flavoured by redistillation within the administrative county of London.
This Amendment does not touch any principle. The Clause is designed to prevent fraud by a false trade description of Scotch whisky. I desire to add words which will also be applicable to gin and London gin. The Amendment will not do injury to the revenue. If it prevents fraud from false trade description it may assist the export trade, which I have particularly in mind, and therefore will benefit the revenue. The Amendment has one object only, and that is to give a definition of gin and London gin which is acceptable to the officers of the revenue. The reason why I ask for such a definition is this: English distillers do a valuable export trade in gin and London gin with foreign countries, but the trade suffer injury because foreign makers have for some time been exporting to our markets abroad where English gin is sold a beverage which is called gin and even London gin, but is certainly not made in England or in London. This foreign beverage is being sold under a false trade description.
When the English distillers draw the attention of foreign authorities to this dishonest system of trading under a false description the foreign authorities say they want a proper and authoritative definition of "gin" and "London gin." They go so far as to say—and it is quite true—that the British Government provides no definition of the words "gin" and "London gin." It will be observed that in this Clause, the Government are now providing a proper definition of "Scotch whisky." The Amendment therefore asks Parliament to equip the British revenue authorities with a cor-
rect definition of gin, so that when our distillers protest against foreign beverages being sold under a false trade description of "gin" or "London gin" they will be able to support their complaint that the competition is dishonest, by placing before the foreign authorities, a definition recognised by the British revenue authorities. My suggestion is that on the Customs export papers there should be a statement, which has been proved and substantiated that the article exported, described as "gin" or "London gin" is truly described in accordance with the formula now proposed.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the meaning of the words
a mash of cereal grain saccharified by the diastase of malt.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: That question should not be put to me. If the hon. Member will examine the Bill, he will see that I am merely adopting the words put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to define "Scotch whisky."

11.8 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Clause contains a provision that spirits shall not be deemed to be properly described as "Scotch whisky" in Excise permits or certificates, unless they comply with the definition. Excise permits and certificates are documents which, must accompany consignments of spirits on removal from one place to another, the object being to enable the revenue officers to verify the source of consignments, when? on the look-out for illicit or smuggled spirits. Hitherto, whisky has been described in these documents as "British plain spirits." The Clause would not make it compulsory to describe any spirits as "Scotch whisky" on permits and certificates, but will make it permissible so to describe spirits which comply with the definition and no other. My hon. Friend wishes to give the same advantages to gin. I express some resentment at his proposal at once because the Committee will observe that while he wishes to define "London gin," he has left out the gin made in my constituency, namely "Plymouth gin." That is almost a sufficient ground upon which to ask the Committee to reject the proposal. There is a difference between gin
and whisky. It may not be perceptible to my hon. Friend, but it is to me. Whisky is under the continuous control of the Excise Department. Gin, on the other hand, is made from something that has already paid an Excise Duty. Consequently, we do not have the same close watch over makers of gin that we have over makers of whisky, and if we gave these certificates in the case of gin, we should have to extend the Customs machinery. That would not be practicable as an immediate proposal.
I must inform the Committee that until this Amendment had been put upon the Paper no representations whatever from the gin interests had been made to my right hon. Friend or to the Customs authorities that this facility should be given. I do not say that it is necessary that their request should be rejected upon that account, but it cannot immediately be accepted. It would entail, as I say, additional Customs supervision, and it would require a discussion with the gin interests as to the kind of supervision that we could properly exercise. In these circumstances I hope my hon. Friend will be content with an assurance that if the gin interests themselves make this proposal, my right hon. Friend, or the officers who serve under him, will, before the next Budget, be ready to discuss with the gin interests some manner in which their desires can be met.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: As a gin distiller, I cannot help complaining of the inaccuracies in the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and I cannot allow them to go by unchallenged. I assure him that the adoption of this Amendment would not entail the slightest bit of increased supervision on the part of the Customs officers. The Excisemen have free access to any distillery or rectifying house at all hours of the day or night, and every single operation is under their close supervision. I quite see my hon. Friend's point of view that nothing could be more fatal to a Government Department than to do anything promptly, and that they would like 12 months to consider it, but this proposal has constantly been made to the Excise authorities in the past, and owing to the fact that there was no official definition of whisky, it has not been
thought right that such a definition should be adopted for gin.
I am disappointed in the hon. Member's attitude, but I wish he would accept my personal assurance that this is no ramp. There are very few gin distillers, and they are unanimous as to the need of this sort of definition, and I am rather surprised at his refusal to adopt it simply because there has been no log rolling of the sort with which this House has become so familiar during the last few hours. I assure the hon. Member Sincerely that this is a perfectly genuine attempt to secure a reasonable definition for an article which plays, certainly, not a very important part in our export trade, but which is exported in considerable quantities and is suffering greatly from lack of a suitable definition. I hope he will accept my assurance, as one who has been engaged in the gin business, not only myself, but many generations behind me, that this is a perfectly genuine Amendment.

11.14 p.m.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his assurance. I take it that what he means is that if I give him time, he will consult those for whom I have the honour to speak with a view to seeing if he can do something for the single purpose of preventing fraud and false description. I take it that if I bring to him representations from the trade he will deal with the matter.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have given my hon. Friend the assurance that my right hon. Friend will between this year and next consider any representations that are made to him. I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson), should not have been satisfied with that, but the fact is I am assured that representations have not yet been made. If they are made, they will be considered.

Mr. NICHOLSON: If the hon. Gentleman wants log-rolling, I can assure him that the gin trade can provide as good log-rolling as any other.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is barrel-rolling.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Why between this year and next, and not between the Committee stage and the Report stage?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Why on earth have these got to be private representations made when an Amendment is moved in this House?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I gave the Committee a brief explanation. The official machinery for verifying these descriptions and permits for certificates is not in being at the present time. No representations have been made before, and before such certificates can be issued it will be necessary to consult the trade. They are asking for a facility which in principle is not objected to in regard to whisky. If they make the same representations we will discuss with the interests the best method of protecting them.

Mr. NICHOLSON: Does it mean that Clause 20 as it stands will entail additional machinery in the case of whisky?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No.

Mr. NICHOLSON: It will not in the case of gin.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: As the Financial Secretary has given a fair assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 21.—(Alteration of duties on licences for certain mechanically-propelled vehicles.)

11.17 p.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I beg to move, in page 16, line 36, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
(except in so far as it applies to vehicles used by a local authority in the performance of its functions).
This Amendment has only one object in view. The Clause places an additional financial burden on local authorities. I need not spend many words in convincing the Chancellor of the Exchequer that local authorities are in a very depressed financial condition, and they can ill afford to bear additional burdens. The Chancellor and the Minister of Transport know that many local authorities have sent deputations seeking financial aid. They have outlined their financial posi-
tion, and, on the strength of that, have asked the Government for financial assistance. The Chancellor is compelled to try and balance the National Budget, but it is not a sane method of doing it to make it difficult, if not impossible, for local authorities to balance their local budgets. We feel that the position is so desperate with so many local authorities that their financial burdens ought not to be increased by one penny. During the Budget speech the Chancellor related this tax to the Road and Rail Traffic Bill. He said:
I do not think there can be any dispute that in the interests of equity between different forms of transport there is an unanswerable case for an increase of the duties upon the heavier class of road vehicles in the goods class."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1933; col. 53, Vol. 277.]
We accept that, but we fail to see how the vehicles referred to in the Amendment compete in any way with either road or rail. There is a block of vehicles used for a specific purpose, solely to carry out the functions of the local authorities.

11.19 p.m.

Major MILNER: I have an Amendment on the paper in page 16, line 39, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that this section- shall not apply to any vehicle used by a local authority for the purposes of their functions relating to the repair and cleansing of highways, the removal of refuse, and other public health services.
I do not know if the Committee appreciate how substantial are the increases made on the particular classes of vehicles concerned. As I understand it, the Amendment refers to vehicles of local authorities used for their general functions, whereas my Amendment refers only to certain classes. Apparently the category of vehicles is as set out in page 36 of the Bill, namely, the class of vehicles other than vehicles charged with the duty under other sub-paragraphs. I had the curiosity to compare the duties set out in this Schedule to those charged under the Act of 1920, and I will quote one or two examples. In the case of electrically-propelled vehicles the difference is that under the Act of 1920, vehicles unladen weighing 25 cwt. are only taxed £6, whereas under the Bill a similar vehicle not weighing more than a ton would actually pay £15, which is 2£ times as much. I understand that in the City of
Birmingham alone this particular increase on electrically-propelled vehicles would amount to no less than £3,000 a year, a very substantial increase. Take the case of vehicles propelled by steam. Under the existing law a vehicle exceeding 2j tons but not exceeding 3 tons in weight unladen pays a duty of only £25, whereas under the Bill the duty would be £35. In the case of another heavier vehicle, one exceeding 3 tons but not exceeding 4 tons, the present duty is £28, and under the Bill it would be £50. I could give other instances if necessary. I hope the Chancellor will see his way to exempting these vehicles belonging to local authorities. Under the Act of 1920 certain vehicles are exempted altogether. Under Section 13 (4) no duty is payable on vehicles used in the fire brigade service, ambulances or road rollers. I think that the local authorities might properly ask that all their vehicles used in the public service might be equally exempt, but all that the Amendment asks is that they may be exempted from the increased duties proposed in the Bill. The Amendment has the support of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and I understand they have communicated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the matter, and I hope that he may see his way to accept the Amendment.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: May I add a word in support of this Amendment? It seems to me to he altogether undesirable that we should have a new tax taking money away from local authorities when at the same time the Minister of Health is trying to find means of providing money for some of the local authorities. I have figures provided by the Sheffield Municipality, which show that; their total additional payments in respect of these vehicles, a great many of them used by the cleansing and tramway departments, will amount to £6,777, nearly double the amount that is now being paid. If money has to be found to-day to assist the Sheffield Municipality from other sources, as suggested by the Minister of Health, it is quite unreasonable to take from Sheffield nearly £7,000 in additional taxation on the vehicles that are used for cleansing the streets, looking after the re-
pairs to the streets and tramways, and for other municipal purposes. I appeal to the Chancellor to give consideration to this matter.

11.23 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): This Amendment, of course, would have the effect of putting the local authorities in a privileged position with regard to taxation. Hon. Members will realise that this Amendment extends to every form of vehicle which is used by a local authority in this country. Municipal electricity undertakings would therefore pay a lower rate of tax than the ordinary commercial undertaking in respect of its vehicles. We can see no justification for such a distinction. It is said that the reason why this concession should be made is that the extra money paid in taxation is to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers. Hon. Members are a little apt to forget what is the destination of this money. The money is paid into the Road Fund, and, although the circumstances of that Fund are a little different, in normal times the whole of the Road Fund is expended in grants to local authorities for upkeep or maintenance of the roads. The whole of the Road Fund, into which this money is paid, goes back to the ratepayers. The result of giving a concession of this kind to a particular set of ratepayers is that you leave in the Road Fund less money available for paying out to others. Owing to the system under which the Road Fund is now governed, the probable effect of this exemption would be to give a benefit to ratepayers in the larger municipality by excusing them from this duty, with a corresponding disadvantage to the county authorities by reducing the amount of money which would be available to them. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend is unable to accept this Amendment.

11.29 p.m.

Major HILLS: I suppose that the refusal of the Minister of Transport to accept the Amendment extends to the other Amendment at the bottom of page 1021, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-east Leeds (Major Milner) and myself—in page 16, line 39, at the end, to add the words;
Provided that this section, shall not apply to any vehicle used, by a local
authority for the purposes of their functions relating to the repair and cleansing of highways, the removal of refuse, and other public health services.
All that I ask in the Amendment is for an exemption that already exists. Under the Act of 1920, fire engines, the fire-brigade wagons, the ambulances and road rollers are exempt. So far as damage to the road is concerned, I should have thought that commercial vehicles did more damage than those that I ask should be exempt, which are vehicles related to the repair and cleansing of highways, removal of refuse and other public services. They are vehicles used largely for assisting in the repair of the roads, and do not, in any event, wear out the roads' very severely.
A further argument, which I think the Minister cannot afford to ignore, is that the justification for these new duties is, I take it, the Salter Report. The Salter Report endeavoured to equalise the charges on rail and road, but there is no competition with rail interests from services which are entirely devoted to attending to the highways and the removal of refuse, nor is there any competition with the other vehicles to which the Minister of Transport referred, and his case did not really apply to the modified form of Amendment which I was proposing to move. This is a very serious charge for local authorities. It will cost the City of Birmingham £3,000 a year, and the City of Sheffield, in the more extended form, £6,700; and all for purposes for which this taxation was not imposed by Parliament. The vehicles included in my Amendment are not within the mischief of the vehicles the inclusion of which is suggested by the Salter Report; they are entirely outside it, and I hope that between now and Report the Minister of Transport will reconsider this question. It is a far bigger question than he appreciates. The articles exempted by my Amendment are not competitive articles, and I cannot see that there is any justification for imposing this taxation on them.

11.33 p.m.

Major NATHAN: Like the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to this matter. I agree with the Minister that the Amendment in the form in which it has been moved is wide, but he need not confine
himself to the actual words on the Paper, especially in view of the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-east Leeds (Major Milner); and, even if that form of words is not agreeable to the Minister, it is always open to him to bring forward on Report what he thinks may be a more apt form of words. As I understand it, he proposes to reject this Amendment on some gr6unds of principle, but no new principle is involved, for the principle of the Amendment has already been admitted by legislation passed by the House. I would refer the Minister of Transport to the Finance Act, 1920, under which no duty is payable in respect of fire engines, vehicles kept by a local authority and used for the purposes of their fire brigade service, ambulances, or road rollers. What is the underlying principle of that exemption? Surely it is that, where a statutory obligation is imposed on a local authority, the local authority shall not be exposed to the expense of taxation by virtue merely of the carrying out of its statutory duties, for neglect of which it would be liable to a penalty. I would urge upon the Minister that on Report he should bring up a form of words which would exempt from taxation vehicles belonging to and used by local authorities in fulfilment of obligations imposed upon them by Parliament.

11.36 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I should like to say a word in order that the Committee may not be under a misapprehension as regards the purpose for which the tax is being raised. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was purely for the purpose of going back to the local authorities. That is exactly contrary to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget speech. He said:
I estimate the yield from these duties to be £1,750,000 in. a full year, and £1,100,000 in 1933. That £1,100,000, of course, does not come direct to the Exchequer, it goes to the Road Fund, but it will accelerate the repayment of advances which have been made by the Exchequer to the Road Fund in the last few years, and I have taken account of this in my estimate of Miscellaneous Receipts.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1933; col. 54, Vol. 277.]
So that this is going to the Exchequer in the form of quicker repayments and, if this money were paid back to the local authorities, it would only reduce the
amount and the speed of repayment for the Exchequer to that extent and it would be a Budget matter not a matter of reducing the fund re-distributable amongst local authorities for the purpose of Toad maintenance.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: The effect of the hon. 'Gentleman's statement is that in normal times this money would go to the Road Fund and would, therefore, in a larger measure go back to the local authorities. Assuming that his argument is right, and that the tax, which comes only from

a selected few local authorities which had taxable vehicles, will be distributed over a very much wider area to local authorities which had made no contributions at all because they have no taxable vehicles. I hope he will consider the very heavy burdens on local authorities which are in a necessitous condition and that any benefits will be received by local authorities that need them most.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 218.

Division No. 197.]
AYES.
[11.39 p.m.


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Nathan, Major H. L.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Salt, Edward W.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Janner, Barnett
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jenkins, Sir William
Sinclair, Ma). Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Dobble, William
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Leckie, J. A.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES-


Griffith, F. Kingsley(Middlesbro',w).
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.


Groves, Thomas E.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
John.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Castlereagh, Viscount
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Glossop, C. W. H.


Alexander, sir William
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Clarry, Reginald George
Goff, Sir Park


Aske, Sir Robert William
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Goldie, Noel B.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gower, Sir Robert


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Conant, R. J. E.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cook, Thomas A.
Graves, Marjorie


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cooke, Douglas
Greene, William P. C.


Balniel, Lord
Copeland, Ida
Grimston, R. V.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Craven-Ellis, William
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bateman, A. L.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hales, Harold K.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Crossley, A. C.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hartington, Marquess of


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hartland, George A.


Bossom, A. C.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Eastwood, John Francis
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Waller E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Elmley, Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hepworth, Joseph


Browne, Captain A. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hope, Capt. Hon. S. O. J. (Aston)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Burghley, Lord
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hornby, Frank


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Horobin, Ian M.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fieldan, Edward Brocklehurst
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Carver, Major William H.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hudson, Capt. A. U M.(Hackney,N.)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. sir Thomas W. H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Slater, John


Iveagh, Countess of
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter O.


Jenninge, Roland
North, Edward T.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
O'Connor, Terenca James
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Ker, J. Campbell
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Soper, Richard


Kerr, Hamilton W,
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Palmer, Francis Noel
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J-


Law, Richard K. (Hull. S.w.)
Patrick, Colin M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pearson, William G.
Spans, William Patrick


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Liddall, Walter s.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Stevenson, James


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Potter, John
Stones, James


Liewellin, Major John J.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (shipley)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Tate, Mavis Constance


McCorquodale, M. S.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thompson, Luke


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Remer, John R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


McEwen, Captain J. H. P.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Touche, Gordon Cosme


McKie, John Hamilton
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecctesall)
Turton, Robert Hugh


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Robinson, John Roland
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross, Ronald D,
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Martin, Thomas B.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Welle, Sydney Richard


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wise, Alfred R.


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wragg, Herbert


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Savery, Samuel Servington



Morrison, William Shepherd
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sir George Penny and Mr. Blindell.


Nail, Sir Joseph
Skelton, Archibald Noel



Question put, and agreed to.

11.47 p.m.

Colonel SHUTE: I beg to move, in page 16, line 39, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that the duties of excise payable in respect of mechanically-propelled vehicles which—

(1) come within the descriptions stated in sub-paragraph (e) (ii) of paragraph 4 set out in Part II. of the Seventh Schedule to this Act or within sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) of paragraph 5 set out in Part III. of that Schedule; and
(2) are employed exclusively for haulage or for the carriage of goods within a port area; and
(3) exceed four tons in weight unladen, shall be thirty-three and one-third per centum less than the respective rates of duties set out in those sub-paragraphs respectively.
In this section 'port area' means any area within the vicinity of a harbour (as defined in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894) which may be prescribed by the Minister of Transport as a port area for the purposes of this proviso.
I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee at this late hour more than a few moments to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be good enough to accept the Amendment. I can speak on this subject relating to the taxation of motor vehicles in dock areas, because it has
reference to vehicles used in the dock area of the Port of Liverpool. I spoke on the question when the original Resolution was before the House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would consider the matter. The imposition of this extra taxation on heavy vehicles in Liverpool would be a distinct and definite charge on the carriage of goods and I do not believe that it can be supported either in equity, justice or even worked out mathematically, from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as bringing in extra revenue. So far as we are able to judge, the result of advancing the rate of duty on these heavy vehicles in Liverpool will be to drive many of our motor vehicles to horse transport. The matter is well understood by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We also had the privilege of having a deputation received by the Minister of Transport. If he can see his way to make this concession, it would be advantageous to him and advantageous in Liverpool to the business all these transport vehicles carry on.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: This question was first raised by my hon. and gallant Friend at an earlier stage of the Finance Bill.
I have Since then given the matter my most careful consideration in view of the importance which I know he attaches to it, but I am afraid that it is not possible for me to accept his Amendment. Hon. Members will realise that my hon. Friend is not asking for relief from the increased duties for vehicles running on roads in the area of dock properly and maintained by the dock authorities, but for vehicles which in fact run on roads made at the expense of the ratepayer and the taxpayer. There is really no distinction in practice to be drawn between the position of, say, a dock authority which wishes to run its vehicles outside its own property to warehouses in the neighbourhood and that of a railway company which wants to run vehicles from its stations to warehouses in a short delivery radius.
It would be impossible therefore to confine the sort of concession for which my hon. Friend asks to port areas. In fact, that was recommended in the Salter Report and the traders concerned agreed with the concession as long as it was conceded to every other form of trading concern in that area which would demand the same concession. Indeed, if hon. Members will look at the actual form of the Amendment they will see the difficulty. The obvious way of defining a port area is the property of the port authority, but that is no good, and therefore my hon. Friend has left the Minister of Transport himself to prescribe what a port area is to mean in any port. It would be possible for me, if the Amendment were to pass and I happened to be a Minister of Transport who had any connection with Liverpool, to define a port area in Liverpool as the whole city, or, if there happened to be a Minister of Transport who had no connection with Liverpool he might define it as that part which is the property of the dock authority—which would not bring that relief which the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires. The difficulty which he has had in framing his Amendment shows the inherent difficulty of the proposal. Although I have got sympathy with him I fear it would be impossible to accept the Amendment without at the same time being under the obligation of giving similar relief to other bodies similarly situated, which would largely destroy the value of the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 22.—(Income Tax for 1933–34.)

Major HILLS: I beg to move, in page 17, line 4, to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "four."
I move this formally for the purpose of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept a Motion to report Progress. This is a very late hour to take a question of this sort. I am not responsible for the lateness of the hour, for I have only made one short speech in the whole day. I suggest it would be treating the Committee with greater fairness and consideration if the right hon. Gentleman would allow me to move to report Progress, so that we may have a chance of discussing it At a more reasonable hour.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Naturally, hon. Members who are interested in their own Amendments are a little resentful if other hon. Members who are interested in other Amendments insist on speaking upon them, and I do not think that the right hon. and gallant Member can complain that the programme has not gone through as quickly as was expected, nor can we reasonably ask the Opposition to maintain the arrangement which was arrived at earlier this evening owing to the unexpected delay on an earlier stage of the Bill. I hope that the Committee will be able to finish Clause 25 before we rise. As regards the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Member may I point out that the question which is raised has been thoroughly discussed on more than one occasion during the various stages of the Budget. I have nothing new to say upon it, and I can hardly think that the right hon. and gallant Member has anything new to say.

31.56 p.m.

Major HILLS: I shall not ask the Committee to discuss the Amendment. May I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that power can be used unfairly. The Government with their immense Majority can do what they like, and, if it is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that
we do not report Progress, I must bow to it. On the other hand, the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is the recognised time for discussing important questions, and, although there may have been discussions on this subject at other stages of the Budget, it is within the right of any hon. Member to put down Amendments. I should have thought that the Government would have given a fair chance for the discussion of an Amendment which stands in the name of one of their supporters at a reasonable hour. Since they will not do that, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I desire to put before the Committee the view of the Opposition on this matter. It is perfectly true that the arrangements which were made have broken down because supporters of the Government have desired to discuss the Finance Bill; and they are entitled to do that. It is now twelve o'clock. Months ago I took the line that as far as the Opposition are concerned we would do our job in the best way we could and that we would never take the line that we are here merely to oppose or obstruct the business of the Government. The point we are up against to-night is that a very important Financial Resolution is to be taken. We want to discuss it even if it is only for a short time. We thoroughly object to our friends being kept here till it is too late to get home at any reasonable time or without considerable expense, and I press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to let us report Progress now. We shall do our best to expedite business on Tuesday and Thursday, and it ought not to be too much to expect supporters of the Government to do the same. Some one said to-day that we objected to hon. Members opposite speaking. It is not that at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to go to the Economic Conference, and we must get through this business in order that he may be free to do so. Circumstances being what they are, that is reasonable. On the other hand supporters of the Government ought to feel that they are called upon to do some-
thing. I am not finding any fault with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury or with Ministers. Circumstances have arisen which have brought us to this, and we should face it, and say that we shall do the job on Monday and Tuesday, even though there is one more Clause to be dealt with then.

12.1 a.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I find myself in some difficulty because owing to what took place earlier in the evening the proceedings were held up. I had consultations with the Leader of the Opposition and with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and they agreed with me that we should go on to the end of Clause 25. Since then there has been no obstruction certainly, and we have done our best to expedite matters. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably be prepared to report Progress now, provided we can get this business and what was arranged, by a reasonable time on Tuesday. But it may be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to keep that bargain on Tuesday afternoon and evening without sitting very late indeed. Under the original programme I allotted a very full afternoon's work indeed to that day, but now, if three additional Clauses have to be taken we may find exactly the same difficulty arising on Tuesday night. The right hon. Gentleman did say at Question time to-day, could I not keep the Government supporters quiet sometimes. If there is additional work to be done on top of what was planned I might even fail, with all the good will of my party towards me.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman is always delightfully reasonable, and that is how he gets his way. If this business is too much to squeeze into the time available let us meet on the Monday after Whitsun. We have been told that this is very important business and that hon. Members wish to discuss it. Let us take a day out of our holiday. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to cross the bridge next Tuesday until we get to it.

Captain MARGESSON: I agree to the Motion to report Progress. I do so in view of the appeal, so courteously made
by the right hon. Gentleman to the Government, and his assurance that he will do his best—as I shall do my best—to complete the programme on Tuesday afternoon.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

METROPOLITAN POLICE [MONEY].

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to the metropolitan police force in regard to the number of assistant commissioners of police, the age of compulsory retirement, membership of the Police Federation, and the appointment of constables for a fixed period of service; to adapt to the case of constables so appointed the enactments relating to police pensions and gratuities, National Health Insurance, and Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) any additional expenses which the provisions of the said Act regulating the age of compulsory retirement may entail in respect of pensions to the commissioner and assistant commissioners of the metropolitan police force so far as the cost thereof is payable out of moneys provided by Parliament; and
(ii) any additional expense which the provisions of the said Act extending the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, and the Widows'. Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, to persons employed as short service constables in the metropolitan police force may entail—

(a) in respect of benefits, and the administration of benefits, under the said Act of 1924, so far as the cost thereof is payable out of moneys provided by Parliament; and
(b) in respect of old age pensions payable under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924."

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 32.

Division No. 198.]
AYES.
[12.10 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
McCorquodale, M. S.


Albery, Irving James
Fuller, Captain A. G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Alexander, Sir William
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Glossop, C. W. H.
McKie, John Hamilton


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Goff, Sir Park
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Bossom, A. C.
Graves, Marjorie
Martin, Thomas B.


Boulton, W. W.
Greene, William P. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Grimston, R. V.
Nierriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mitchell, Harold p.(Br tf'd & Chisw'k)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hales, Harold K.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Morrison, William Shephard


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Muirhead. Major A. J.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hartington, Marquess of
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hartland, George A.
North, Edward T.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Connor, Terence James


Carver, Major William H.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Castlereagh, viscount
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ormiston, Thomas


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Clarry, Reginald George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pearson, William G.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.
Hepworth, Joseph
Penny, Sir George


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pike, Cecil F.


Cooke, Douglas
Hore-Belisha, Lesile
Potter, John


Copeland, Ida
Hornby, Frank
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Craven-Ellis, William
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rankin, Robert


Crossley, A. C.
Hudson,Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rea, Walter Russell


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Renter, John R.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Elmley, Viscount
Leckie, J. A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Robinson, John Roland


Erarys-Evans, P. V.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ropner, Colonel L.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Llewellin, Major John J.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ross, Ronald D.


Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Soper, Richard
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Stevenson, James
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Livorp'l)
Stones, James
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


salt, Edward w.
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray. F.
Wise, Alfred R.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wragg, Herbert


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo



Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Slater, John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Mr. Blindell and Commander


Somervell, Donald Bradley
ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Southby.


NOES.


Banfield, John William
Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James


Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Parkinson, John Allen


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Daggar, George
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dobble, William
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert



Greenwood, HI. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Cordon


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James
Macdonald.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the rural district of Ten-dring, in the county of Essex, which was presented on the 2nd day of May 1933, be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clook.